This is perhaps old news, but I love the fact that the town in which I live is in the top ten of Amazon.com's "Harry-est" towns in America. Amazon apparently used the data from the U.S. census (town population) versus the number of pre-orders of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows per capita (per person). The 2007 population estimate at the website of the U.S. Census Bureau for Doylestown, PA is 8,149. In 2000, the U.S. census revealed the population in Doylestown to be only slightly higher (~8,200), of which nearly 14% were those under 18 years of age.
Now, the "Harry-est" town in America was Falls Church, VA, which in 2000 had a population of 10,377 people (according the U.S. census), and which steadily rose through the year 2007 (the U.S. Census Bureau reports this info as a 10,948 population estimate). The second "Harry-est" town was Gig Harbor, WA, and this is impressive - they only had as their population estimate in 2007 by the Census Bureau, 6, 621. So Falls Church was the "Harry-est", but had over 3,000 more people living there than the second "Harry-est" town, and over 2,000 more people than my hometown, which was the 9th "Harry-est" town. Are you confused yet? The point is this. There were less people in Gig Harbor and in Doylestown, which means that there were probably more Potter books in Gig Harbor per square mile than in Falls Church, VA, and you can be sure that there were many Potter books in households per square mile in Doylestown, PA. Of course, this doesn't account for all the books sold by the local bookstores and the chain bookstores (Borders, Barnes & Noble, etc.). I had reserved my book at the local Doylestown Bookshop, and picked it up at midnight on July 21st. I luckily got about fifth place in line - the line itself went around the block outside and I heard that the cashiers were in place until after 2 AM.
At any rate, why do I find this so fascinating? People sometimes smile awkwardly when I talk about Harry Potter analysis in Doylestown, acting as if this is a foreign subject, but let's get some things straight. We were the 9th "Harry-est" town in America for that last book, and while some of the people here might be closet Harry readers, the books certainly aren't gathering any dust.
As a side note, the "Top 100 Harry-est Towns" list includes some other towns in Pennsylvania. I will bold the towns that I've visited in the past.
6. Media (this is west of Doylestown; dang, they beat us on the list)
14. West Chester (I went to college here)
20. Downingtown (15 mins. from West Chester)
24. Mechanicsburg
35. Collegeville (between Doylestown and West Chester)
51. Kennett Square (15 mins. from West Chester)
82. Ambler (on the way to Philly from Doylestown, about 40 mins. away)
89. Lewisburg
97. Stroudsburg (WCU marching band was better than East Stroudsburg's, sorry East Stroudsburg, the truth hurts)
The majority of these locations are Philadelphia suburbs, and Mechanicsburg and Lewisburg are closer to the center of the state, but not quite the center. Mechanicsburg is in the south of Pennsylvania and Lewisburg is further north. So, Pennsylvania did have nine towns out of a hundred as the "Harry-est" in the nation according to Amazon.com. Whew! Alas, Pennsylvania was the 23rd "Harry-est" state in the nation according to Amazon.com's ranking of the states. But I guess we Pennsylvanians can content ourselves with the fact that one of the two epithets in Deathly Hallows that Rowling selected was by William Penn, after whom Pennsylvania is named. So, take that, capital of the nation, Washington, D.C. (who is the "Harry-est" state - which is not a state). Or take that, Vermont, who is actually a state and is the "Harr-est" after D.C. HAH!
Oh, and don't forget that Amazon.com's list doesn't include the free-loaders at the library. lol.
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
A Meet-Up with John Granger!
This past Saturday, February 21st, I had the opportunity to meet (for the second time) John Granger and discuss the Harry Potter books. The HP discussion was hosted by Potterdelphia, a group of which I am now a member. They had a general Potterdelphia meeting the following day, but I fell ill overnight and so could not attend. There were only five people in attendance, but this didn't depress John; he gave a wonderful lecture called "The Eyes of Deathly Hallows" in which he explained that the last Harry Potter installment was all about eyeballs. (Really all about the logos, and to understand that you should really read his book, The Deathly Hallows Lectures in which this particular lecture is a chapter).
We also got to hear his interesting story of how his first Potter-analysis book was published, and some other experiences in the Potter-world he'd had over the years. When I asked him if he'd read logospilgrim's bring forth the best robes (lower-case letters are intended here), he stated that he knew logospilgrim, herself. This was a delight to me, as I loved that small work. And I also asked him what he thought about Nancy S. Villacruz's new book, Does Harry Potter Tickle Sleeping Dragons? I told John that I thought her book was intriguing, but entirely too arrogant in either disregarding or merely waving away other Potter analysis books. Villacruz then says that her book is unique (you can find this phrase firstly on the dust jacked back flap). But she hasn't quite proved this, because she hasn't compared herself to any of the other books (ex. Granger's, Prinzi's, Thomas', Neal's, Heilman's, etc.). Please don't take this as a message not to read her book. No, no. Not at all. To me, all Potter-analysis is intriguing. Just as a person holding a BA in History, I know that in any analysis, while we are supposed to rely on primary sources (in this case, Harry Potter canon and all the other canon pieces that Villacruz mentions in a nice three-way definition - props to her here), we are supposed to acknowledge secondary sources. And if we don't agree with them, we are supposed to take them on and contest their points. Anyway, I think John Granger found my analysis of her book interesting.
I can't wait for John Granger's new book, Harry Potter's Bookshelf, to become available this summer, and apparently he speaks in Princeton, NJ next month. I wish I could be there! It was, as a whole, a delightful early afternoon in Philadelphia.
As a side note, I had a long discussion with Skott of Potterdelphia after John had left. We spoke on a whole bunch of Potter topics including Nurmengard (of which I hope to post an essay shortly) and the splitting of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (questioning where the split would occur).
We also got to hear his interesting story of how his first Potter-analysis book was published, and some other experiences in the Potter-world he'd had over the years. When I asked him if he'd read logospilgrim's bring forth the best robes (lower-case letters are intended here), he stated that he knew logospilgrim, herself. This was a delight to me, as I loved that small work. And I also asked him what he thought about Nancy S. Villacruz's new book, Does Harry Potter Tickle Sleeping Dragons? I told John that I thought her book was intriguing, but entirely too arrogant in either disregarding or merely waving away other Potter analysis books. Villacruz then says that her book is unique (you can find this phrase firstly on the dust jacked back flap). But she hasn't quite proved this, because she hasn't compared herself to any of the other books (ex. Granger's, Prinzi's, Thomas', Neal's, Heilman's, etc.). Please don't take this as a message not to read her book. No, no. Not at all. To me, all Potter-analysis is intriguing. Just as a person holding a BA in History, I know that in any analysis, while we are supposed to rely on primary sources (in this case, Harry Potter canon and all the other canon pieces that Villacruz mentions in a nice three-way definition - props to her here), we are supposed to acknowledge secondary sources. And if we don't agree with them, we are supposed to take them on and contest their points. Anyway, I think John Granger found my analysis of her book interesting.
I can't wait for John Granger's new book, Harry Potter's Bookshelf, to become available this summer, and apparently he speaks in Princeton, NJ next month. I wish I could be there! It was, as a whole, a delightful early afternoon in Philadelphia.
As a side note, I had a long discussion with Skott of Potterdelphia after John had left. We spoke on a whole bunch of Potter topics including Nurmengard (of which I hope to post an essay shortly) and the splitting of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows (questioning where the split would occur).
Friday, February 13, 2009
Claymation Deathly Hallows!
Everybody who is a fan of Harry Potter needs to head over to YouTube, big time. A fan of the series, and apparently a film student to boot, has posted in 26 parts a four hour and twenty minute film of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. It is in claymation, and while it is an amateur work, the whole thing is unique and inspiring. There are even special effects.
The artist has an amazing talent, and I really hope PotterCast interviews this person.
Here's a link to the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvUCJU1a7dI
Enjoy!
The artist has an amazing talent, and I really hope PotterCast interviews this person.
Here's a link to the first part: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvUCJU1a7dI
Enjoy!
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Analysis Post #2: The Two Wicked Hufflepuffs... and Some Who Aren't So Wicked
The inspiration for this posting came from two sources: a "Canon Conundrum" in PotterCast 142: "British Dogs and Fuzzy Hats" and John Granger's essay "High Inquisitor = Grand Inquisitor," posted at his website on April 8, 2008, and still available online at http://hogwartsprofessor.com/?p=363#more-363. Oh, and various fans of Hufflepuff out there, before you "badger" me for writing the following, please make it through all of the essay. I have no specific biases against Hufflepuff House. In fact, I think they're responsible for the Pittsburgh Steelers winning the 2009 SuperBowl. But that's just mere conjecture.
On to the subject at hand. Let me make a blatant statement, which will send yellow and black badgers forever flying my way: Dolores Umbridge and Hepzibah Smith were Hufflepuffs. Yes, I did say Umbridge's name. Ouch. ::flying badger smacks me in the face::
Let's start with Hepzibah, because I believe that her placement in Hufflepuff House seems the most likely. She's a descendant of Helga Hufflepuff; this much we know. She has Hufflepuff's Cup and is murdered for it (as well as for Slytherin's locket that she bought from Caractacus Burke). Her last name is Smith, which alludes to Zacharias Smith, and I think Rowling is leading us to believe that the two characters are relatives.
Dolores Umbridge is harder to see as a Hufflepuff; even the majority of PotterCast thought that she was a Slytherin. But I believe that she is a Hufflepuff with Slytherin characteristics; that Slytherin is her sub-house. This idea I read about in Geo Athena Trevarthen's book, The Seeker's Guide to Harry Potter. In the third chapter, "Four Houses, Four Elements," Trevarthen explains that there is a balance to the houses, that there can be an "admixture" of the different houses (p. 81). As she explains in her book for example, the four Gryffindor characters, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville each exhibit, besides their dominant Gryffindor characteristics, the characteristics of another house, Slytherin, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, respectively.
Now what are the qualities of a Hufflepuff as described by Professor Trevarthen? That they are loyal and hard-working. In her chart under "Magical Precepts," she writes that they "keep silent" and while describing the badger totem, she writes "the term 'badgering' comes from the badger's savage and persistently determined quality" (p. 77).
All of these qualities, however, can be turned to evil purposes, and are done so by both Hepzibah and Dolores. Furthermore, their characters seem to parody two other characters in two other famous works of literature by a single author.
John Granger writes in his essay, "High Inquisitor = Grand Inquisitor?" of the connection between the Harry Potter series and Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, regarded by some as one of the best, if not the best piece of literature in the history of the world. The tale of "The Grand Inquisitor," a part of the story, is even sold separately, just because of its extreme resonance. But as Granger points out, "Inquisitor" is a pretty unique word, barring its historical references to the Spanish Inquisition. Granger sums up the link between the Grand Inquisitor and Dolores Umbridge, Hogwarts High Inquisitor as such, that
Granger then later goes on to say that "for his several, superficial differences with the High Inquisitor, the Grand Inquisitor is her [Rowling's] original. Both insist on the silence of the unwelcome Savior in the name of protecting the innocent from a truth which they “cannot handle” and, in that process, to safeguard the authority of the regime." Granger also goes on to contrast the differences in the situation between Dostoevsky's novel and Rowling's series, so you really should get on over to hogwartsprofessor.com and read the whole essay (it's so marvelous), but this is enough for now.
Hepzibah, however, I believe can be compared to a character from one of Dostoevsky's other great pieces of literature, Crime and Punishment, in which the old-woman money-lender (virutally a pawnbrokeress) is murdered by the main character, Raskolnikov (who is himself used in comparison to elements of the Potter series in other articles) as he believes that committing this single act of murder is for "the greater good." Sound familiar? Unfortunately, he also murders the woman's half-sister, Lizaveta, who stumbles in on the murder (bad timing for her). The rest of the book is a look at Raskolnikov's shambling soul. But you should really read that classic - I can't give the whole plot away here.
At any rate, yes, Hepzibah Smith is very like the old woman in Crime and Punishment. It's easy to imagine Voldemort thinking about stealing Hufflepuff's Cup and Slytherin's Locket from her and murdering her "for the greater good" - at least the "greater good" that he imagines making Horcruxes and "purifying" the Wizarding World to be.
But let's look at the two characters and bring this back to a discussion of Hufflepuff characteristics: one is extremely loyal to the wealthy and one is extremely loyal to the letter of the law (even if the government is bankrupt). After all, what exactly was Umbridge's role in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince during Rufus Scrimgeour's time as Minister of Magic? She certainly did not have a big one. But she did during Fudge's reign as Minister, especially in Order of the Phoenix, and during Pius Thicknesse's reign as puppet Minister in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. We know that in Voldy-War I, as it's come to be known in the fandom, that Scrimgeour used extra-legal means with Barty Crouch, Sr. at hand to hold down the ministry. I'm not sure that "loyal to the law" Umbridge would have agreed with that.
But she could agree with Fudge. She could be loyal to Fudge. And in fact, she was placed as the Defense Against the Dark Arts intructor at Hogwarts because of her loyalty to Cornelius Fudge. Sure, she had some Slytherin ambition, as I believe Hepizbah, who we know much less about, also probably did, in her dealings with both Caractacus Burke and Tom Riddle, Jr. (the latter of which got her killed). Did Cornelius Fudge really go against the letter of the law and try to be above it? Quite frankly, I don't think he did. That doesn't mean that he's a real idiot and didn't have any ambition himself.
And look closely in Deathly Hallows at Umbridge's role in the Ministry. She was too low on Voldemort's radar, as PotterCast 142 rightly pointed out, to be in direct dealings with Voldemort. After all, how would Voldemort react if he'd met her and seen his Horcrux around the neck? For all the foreshadowings of decapitation in the Harry Potter series up to Book 7, I would not be surprised in hindsight for her to lose her head, walking around with that around her neck. (It also proves Voldemort's trust in his followers - I do imagine that Bellatrix, Lucius and Severus Snape would have seen Umbridge once with that necklace during their relations with the ministry and in the Wizarding World, and none of them apparently did anything about that fact). So what is Umbridge doing in the Ministry in Deathly Hallows besides executing the law in the lower levels? She's making law leaflets and pamphlets. Why did Rowling show us this? Yes, she's loyal to the government now that it's the law that has changed. Remember, she's for theory, not for practicality. We know this from the fifth book.
But these two characters have opposites in the series as well, examples of good Hufflepuffs. Their opposites help to resolve, in a sense, their wicked characters.
Amelia Susan Bones was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, and participated in Harry's trial in book five as a member of the Wizengamot. She was killed by Voldemort in the summer prior to the start of Harry's sixth school year. Now, we don't know for certain her Hogwarts House, but I think we're very easily led to believe that she was a Hufflepuff due to her niece, Susan Bones, in Harry's year at Hogwarts, who is a Hufflepuff. She is quintessentially Umbridge's opposite. After all, the word "umbrage," which many agree is the word from which Dolores' name is taken, means shade or shadow. Your bones, on the other hand, are an essential element of your body, your essence and your core, and bone is used to describe a light beige color (this is opposed to shadow as darkness).
Hepzibah Smith finds her opposite in Cedric Diggory. Hepzibah held on to her treasures and acquired them through wicked means. Through them, she exhibited the sin of pride and of greed. Diggory offered the cup to Harry, and offered up what would have been a big win for Hufflepuff House, a treasure all it's own. He gave it all up. In the end, Diggory let go of pride and of greed (for there was a thousand Galleons on the line to the winner of tournament). He was also murdered by Lord Voldemort, just like Amelia Bones.
What do the four characters teach us? That loyalty and determination is a good thing, but it can serve evil purposes as well. But by acting like Bones and Diggory, both remembered as symbols of Hufflepuff qualities, the world can be a better place.
extra: Umbridge looks like a toad. Neville, the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff, has a pet toad. Something to think about.
On to the subject at hand. Let me make a blatant statement, which will send yellow and black badgers forever flying my way: Dolores Umbridge and Hepzibah Smith were Hufflepuffs. Yes, I did say Umbridge's name. Ouch. ::flying badger smacks me in the face::
Let's start with Hepzibah, because I believe that her placement in Hufflepuff House seems the most likely. She's a descendant of Helga Hufflepuff; this much we know. She has Hufflepuff's Cup and is murdered for it (as well as for Slytherin's locket that she bought from Caractacus Burke). Her last name is Smith, which alludes to Zacharias Smith, and I think Rowling is leading us to believe that the two characters are relatives.
Dolores Umbridge is harder to see as a Hufflepuff; even the majority of PotterCast thought that she was a Slytherin. But I believe that she is a Hufflepuff with Slytherin characteristics; that Slytherin is her sub-house. This idea I read about in Geo Athena Trevarthen's book, The Seeker's Guide to Harry Potter. In the third chapter, "Four Houses, Four Elements," Trevarthen explains that there is a balance to the houses, that there can be an "admixture" of the different houses (p. 81). As she explains in her book for example, the four Gryffindor characters, Harry, Ron, Hermione and Neville each exhibit, besides their dominant Gryffindor characteristics, the characteristics of another house, Slytherin, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff, respectively.
Now what are the qualities of a Hufflepuff as described by Professor Trevarthen? That they are loyal and hard-working. In her chart under "Magical Precepts," she writes that they "keep silent" and while describing the badger totem, she writes "the term 'badgering' comes from the badger's savage and persistently determined quality" (p. 77).
All of these qualities, however, can be turned to evil purposes, and are done so by both Hepzibah and Dolores. Furthermore, their characters seem to parody two other characters in two other famous works of literature by a single author.
John Granger writes in his essay, "High Inquisitor = Grand Inquisitor?" of the connection between the Harry Potter series and Dostoevsky's The Brothers Karamazov, regarded by some as one of the best, if not the best piece of literature in the history of the world. The tale of "The Grand Inquisitor," a part of the story, is even sold separately, just because of its extreme resonance. But as Granger points out, "Inquisitor" is a pretty unique word, barring its historical references to the Spanish Inquisition. Granger sums up the link between the Grand Inquisitor and Dolores Umbridge, Hogwarts High Inquisitor as such, that
"Both... are convinced that they are performing heroic service for their
organizations, and, through this organization, for the people who are best off
not knowing what is done in their name or enjoying real freedom. Dolores and the
Grand Inquisitor do not hesitate to act boldly and independently for what they
believe is best for the Ministry/Church; one arrests and plans to execute Christ
(again), the other looses Dementors on Harry, tortures him and other students
“for their own good,” and is even willing to use Unforgivable Curses if the
situation justifies those means."
Granger then later goes on to say that "for his several, superficial differences with the High Inquisitor, the Grand Inquisitor is her [Rowling's] original. Both insist on the silence of the unwelcome Savior in the name of protecting the innocent from a truth which they “cannot handle” and, in that process, to safeguard the authority of the regime." Granger also goes on to contrast the differences in the situation between Dostoevsky's novel and Rowling's series, so you really should get on over to hogwartsprofessor.com and read the whole essay (it's so marvelous), but this is enough for now.
Hepzibah, however, I believe can be compared to a character from one of Dostoevsky's other great pieces of literature, Crime and Punishment, in which the old-woman money-lender (virutally a pawnbrokeress) is murdered by the main character, Raskolnikov (who is himself used in comparison to elements of the Potter series in other articles) as he believes that committing this single act of murder is for "the greater good." Sound familiar? Unfortunately, he also murders the woman's half-sister, Lizaveta, who stumbles in on the murder (bad timing for her). The rest of the book is a look at Raskolnikov's shambling soul. But you should really read that classic - I can't give the whole plot away here.
At any rate, yes, Hepzibah Smith is very like the old woman in Crime and Punishment. It's easy to imagine Voldemort thinking about stealing Hufflepuff's Cup and Slytherin's Locket from her and murdering her "for the greater good" - at least the "greater good" that he imagines making Horcruxes and "purifying" the Wizarding World to be.
But let's look at the two characters and bring this back to a discussion of Hufflepuff characteristics: one is extremely loyal to the wealthy and one is extremely loyal to the letter of the law (even if the government is bankrupt). After all, what exactly was Umbridge's role in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince during Rufus Scrimgeour's time as Minister of Magic? She certainly did not have a big one. But she did during Fudge's reign as Minister, especially in Order of the Phoenix, and during Pius Thicknesse's reign as puppet Minister in Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. We know that in Voldy-War I, as it's come to be known in the fandom, that Scrimgeour used extra-legal means with Barty Crouch, Sr. at hand to hold down the ministry. I'm not sure that "loyal to the law" Umbridge would have agreed with that.
But she could agree with Fudge. She could be loyal to Fudge. And in fact, she was placed as the Defense Against the Dark Arts intructor at Hogwarts because of her loyalty to Cornelius Fudge. Sure, she had some Slytherin ambition, as I believe Hepizbah, who we know much less about, also probably did, in her dealings with both Caractacus Burke and Tom Riddle, Jr. (the latter of which got her killed). Did Cornelius Fudge really go against the letter of the law and try to be above it? Quite frankly, I don't think he did. That doesn't mean that he's a real idiot and didn't have any ambition himself.
And look closely in Deathly Hallows at Umbridge's role in the Ministry. She was too low on Voldemort's radar, as PotterCast 142 rightly pointed out, to be in direct dealings with Voldemort. After all, how would Voldemort react if he'd met her and seen his Horcrux around the neck? For all the foreshadowings of decapitation in the Harry Potter series up to Book 7, I would not be surprised in hindsight for her to lose her head, walking around with that around her neck. (It also proves Voldemort's trust in his followers - I do imagine that Bellatrix, Lucius and Severus Snape would have seen Umbridge once with that necklace during their relations with the ministry and in the Wizarding World, and none of them apparently did anything about that fact). So what is Umbridge doing in the Ministry in Deathly Hallows besides executing the law in the lower levels? She's making law leaflets and pamphlets. Why did Rowling show us this? Yes, she's loyal to the government now that it's the law that has changed. Remember, she's for theory, not for practicality. We know this from the fifth book.
But these two characters have opposites in the series as well, examples of good Hufflepuffs. Their opposites help to resolve, in a sense, their wicked characters.
Amelia Susan Bones was the Head of the Department of Magical Law Enforcement, and participated in Harry's trial in book five as a member of the Wizengamot. She was killed by Voldemort in the summer prior to the start of Harry's sixth school year. Now, we don't know for certain her Hogwarts House, but I think we're very easily led to believe that she was a Hufflepuff due to her niece, Susan Bones, in Harry's year at Hogwarts, who is a Hufflepuff. She is quintessentially Umbridge's opposite. After all, the word "umbrage," which many agree is the word from which Dolores' name is taken, means shade or shadow. Your bones, on the other hand, are an essential element of your body, your essence and your core, and bone is used to describe a light beige color (this is opposed to shadow as darkness).
Hepzibah Smith finds her opposite in Cedric Diggory. Hepzibah held on to her treasures and acquired them through wicked means. Through them, she exhibited the sin of pride and of greed. Diggory offered the cup to Harry, and offered up what would have been a big win for Hufflepuff House, a treasure all it's own. He gave it all up. In the end, Diggory let go of pride and of greed (for there was a thousand Galleons on the line to the winner of tournament). He was also murdered by Lord Voldemort, just like Amelia Bones.
What do the four characters teach us? That loyalty and determination is a good thing, but it can serve evil purposes as well. But by acting like Bones and Diggory, both remembered as symbols of Hufflepuff qualities, the world can be a better place.
extra: Umbridge looks like a toad. Neville, the Gryffindor-Hufflepuff, has a pet toad. Something to think about.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
The Two Wicked Hufflepuffs - or So I Believe...
I will soon be posting a new essay, inspired in part by previous held beliefs about a certain character introduced in Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, and another certain (major) character introduced in Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. The other part of inspiration for this upcoming essay is from listening to The Leaky Cauldron's archived PotterCast episode #142. Can you guess the two characters I am writing about?
Dun Dun DUN!!!
Hepzibah Smith
and
Dolores Umbridge.
Dun Dun DUN!!!
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Hiding the Diadem - Extra Piece
As an addendum to my first post entitled "Hiding the Diadem," I recently noted this from http://www.jkrowling.com/. In the "Wizard of the Month" archive, no. 40/42 is Hogwarts founder, Rowena Ravenclaw. Her description reads:
"Medieval (precise dates unknown). One of the four famous Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Rowena Ravenclaw was the most brilliant witch of her time, though legend has it that a broken heart - cause unknown - contributed to her early demise." [emphasis added]
"Medieval (precise dates unknown). One of the four famous Founders of Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, Rowena Ravenclaw was the most brilliant witch of her time, though legend has it that a broken heart - cause unknown - contributed to her early demise." [emphasis added]
Now, that information was added to the website on 8 January 2007, seven months before the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Who could have guessed how significant that little piece of information would be. I think we now know exactly why Rowena had a broken heart - this was over her daughter Helena. Just how early her demise was, we may never know.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Analysis Post #1: Hiding the Diadem
Perhaps it would be strange to ponder over particular elements of the Harry Potter series (and not write of my general understanding of Rowling's themes and seeming philosophy) at the beginning of my positing on this blog. However, particular questions seem to pop up in my mind more frequently than the former; perhaps after reading much Potter analysis myself, I take some of it for granted, and will have to explore the larger issues with more time and reflection. As such, the reader will have to bear with me as subsequent posts become a crash course in Harry Potter analysis, from the smallest elements to the larger themes. My first post is one that I believe led to some of the motivation to start this blog, and it is a question that I only could have developed after the release of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So if you have not read Book 7, I suggest that you stop following this blog, because spoilers will abound ahead.
In Book Seven, Harry is on his quest to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes and one of the Horcruxes turns out to be Ravenclaw's Diadem, hidden at Hogwarts in the Room of Hidden Things (a.k.a. the Room of Requirement). Tom Riddle, Jr. (a.k.a. Lord Voldemort) had hidden the Diadem there, believing that nobody else would know where to find it. But until very near the end of the story, Harry doesn't even know that the Horcrux in question was Ravenclaw's Diadem. Speaking during the Battle of Hogwarts with the Gray Lady, the Ghost of Ravenclaw, Harry figures out that the Diadem is in fact one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, and that he had retrieved it from its legendary hiding place and hidden it in Hogwarts during his request for employment from Dumbledore.
But during the few pages in which Harry figures this out, we get the interesting side story of the Gray Lady herself, Rowena Ravenclaw's daughter, Helena Ravenclaw, and, by consequence, the story of Slytherin House's ghost, the Bloody Baron. As for the other ghosts at Hogwarts, we know some things about Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (a.k.a. "Nearly Headless Nick"), the Gryffindor House ghost, especially from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the JKR.com website (the ballad of his nearly-headless history), and The Tales of Beedle the Bard, where a footnote indicates that in the fifteenth century, Nick had been killed by Muggle persecution, after having once been a member of the Royal Court) (Beedle 12). We don't really know that much about the Fat Friar (the Ghost of Hufflepuff House). The question I wish to ponder today is a small one, but may relate to a larger theme in the Potter series, and that question is the following:
Why did the Gray Lady, Helena Ravenclaw, hide the Ravenclaw Diadem in a hollow tree in Albania?
Why the hollow tree?
Why did she (and J. K. Rowling for her story) choose Albania?
First of all, we must backtrack and find out what Helena did tell Harry in those hectic moments during the Battle of Hogwarts. That information is located on pages 615-617 in the American hardcover edition of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. To summarize, the Gray Lady's story goes like this:
There are very big themes in this small passage that Rowling is sharing with her readers through Helena's story. Themes of jealousy, love, passion, betrayal, penitence, the power of will and of knowledge, depression and loneliness. One has to read between the lines here: what was Rowling asking us, as readers, to really ponder here?
We have to deal with the major points of this story, the first two points of which is that the Ravenclaw Diadem had belonged to one of the Four Founders of Hogwarts, and was rumored to "bestow wisdom." In Geo Athena Trevarthen's book, The Seeker's Guide to Harry Potter, there is a discussion on the Hogwarts Houses in the third chapter, entitled "Four Houses, Four Elements." Professor Trevarthen discusses the totemic animal, of Ravenclaw, the eagle, and the raven (from the name of the house) and their traditional meanings in various folk cultures. She then begins a discussion of Ravenclaw house and its key characters in the books, notably Cho, Luna and Professor Flitwick. She doesn't really mention Helena, or Rowena, the founder. But what she does say about Ravenclaw relates to Ravenclaw's motto engraved on the diadem, "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure." Her explanation of Ravenclaw's house qualities and magical precept is this:
Professor Trevarthen later goes on to say that to be a wizard means "someone who has personal knowledge, often, knowledge of the sacred. A wizard is a person who can see spiritual reality personally and vividly and who is informed by this experience, so that he becomes wise." (Trevarthen 66).
An object, like the Ravenclaw diadem, that bestows consciousness of oneself so that they become wise, instead of the person themselves journeying through life to become wise (and so not needing such an object), is both a symbol of power and beauty and on a practical level, a dangerous object indeed. To bestow wisdom... perhaps before a person is ready for that kind of understanding? In the summary of the story, point three (above) reminds us that Helena had stolen the diadem from her mother out of jealousy. What stopped her from wearing it? And as noted above, Rowling's words imply that the diadem may not have always been hidden. Why did Helena really flee? Was she fleeing her mother's anger at her thievery? This seems improbable; Rowena never made any mention of it being missing (point four).
And then Helena fled to a lonely place. The diadem had bestowed wisdom upon Helena of, as Prof. Trevarthen noted, "knowledge of the sacred... to see spiritual reality personally and vividly and who is informed by this experience." But Helena didn't become wise by figuring this out herself. She was granted wisdom, and hence learned this about herself. What was her spiritual reality on a personal level? Out of jealousy (greed and envy come to mind) she stole from her own mother a great item so that she could become better than her mother. Her want of knowledge stemmed directly from the will to be better, more clever, more powerful than her own family.
So why did she flee? She fled to a lonely place, where she thought the diadem could be hidden, where she could hide. I believe that she fled because upon learning so much, so quickly about herself, she was ashamed, and depressed, and her penitence was to spend the remainder of her life alone in that forest in Albania.
For how do you stumble upon a hollow tree? You don't. Helena spent a long time hiding there.
Her mother, on the other hand, became wise through the course of her long life. She didn't send the Baron to find her daughter in any immediate time after the diadem was stolen (though of course, we don't know how much time elapsed between the thievery and Rowena's fatal illness). But I believe that the writing implies that much time had passed. She only sent the Baron when she was on her deathbed and wished to see her daughter. She had, no doubt, become wise without the aid of the diadem, figured out what her daughter had done, and figured the one place on the earth (note Prof. Trevarthen's words "know the world") where her daughter would be.
So the question is mostly answered about "why the hollow tree?" Helena had been in that forest for quite a while. And the symbolism of a hollow tree is also a big point here - Helena, upon being granted wisdom from the diadem knew herself to be shallow and empty for the deed she had done - she herself was hollow. Trees can certainly symbolize natural life and knowledge; for a tree to be hollow... I am sure you will like to ponder this point for yourself. But to understand why Rowling chose Albania as the location of the forest, we have to "know the world." What do we know about Albania?
I read in an essay entitled "The Peasant, the Tramp and Hepzibah Smith: A Horcrux Cas Study" by WaggaWaggaWerewolf (available at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue22/HorcruxCaseStudy) that "[t]he Sorting Hat gives some clues when it associates Ravenclaw with mountains and eagles. Albania is a small, isolated, and rather poor country, named for its mountainous terrain, which is heavily forested in places. The people who live there speak a language similar to the one spoken by hardworking Ancient Trojans, and in that language, Albania... translates as the Land of the Eagles. Albanian members of the cult of the snake consider it an important household benefactor." The author then goes on to ponder whether or not this is where the idea for the snake nailed to the door at the Gaunt house came from and what exactly drew Voldemort to stay there in isolation for ten years.
Rowena, becoming wise on her deathbed, no doubt knew that her "wise" daughter would go to the "Land of the Eagles." It is also no wonder why her daughter, then, is named Helena. The story of "Helen of Troy" comes to mind here. And in the Gray Lady's story, Rowena may have considered "the snake" a.k.a. the Bloody Baron, a "household benefactor," whom she hoped to use to repair her household, alas to no avail.
But to bring us back to the original question? Why did the Gray Lady hide the Ravenclaw Diadem in a hollow tree in Albania? Because she was ashamed of herself, and what she had done. She had gained this personal knowledge by becoming wise, and fled to the ancient "Land of the Eagles" to repent her sin. Later, upon forgiving her daughter, Rowena (at the end of her life) sent the Baron (the "household benefactor" snake) to retrieve her daughter, for she had become wise as to the same premature knowledge Helena had gained of the "Land of the Eagles." She probably also fully understood, at that point in her life, the words "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Didn't Rowling state that out of the two biblical passages she presents in Deathly Hallows, that one sums up about half of the whole story?
This doesn't even skim the surface, though, of the whole story between the Baron and the Gray Lady, of which I haven't even begun to analyze, and I won't do right now. But I do believe that there are parallels, and very obvious ones here, between the character of the Bloody Baron and Severus Snape. With the exception that Snape, I believe, "will have gone on" in Nick's words (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). I'll leave that discussion for another time.
I hope you've enjoyed my efforts at analysis. :)
In Book Seven, Harry is on his quest to destroy Voldemort's Horcruxes and one of the Horcruxes turns out to be Ravenclaw's Diadem, hidden at Hogwarts in the Room of Hidden Things (a.k.a. the Room of Requirement). Tom Riddle, Jr. (a.k.a. Lord Voldemort) had hidden the Diadem there, believing that nobody else would know where to find it. But until very near the end of the story, Harry doesn't even know that the Horcrux in question was Ravenclaw's Diadem. Speaking during the Battle of Hogwarts with the Gray Lady, the Ghost of Ravenclaw, Harry figures out that the Diadem is in fact one of Voldemort's Horcruxes, and that he had retrieved it from its legendary hiding place and hidden it in Hogwarts during his request for employment from Dumbledore.
But during the few pages in which Harry figures this out, we get the interesting side story of the Gray Lady herself, Rowena Ravenclaw's daughter, Helena Ravenclaw, and, by consequence, the story of Slytherin House's ghost, the Bloody Baron. As for the other ghosts at Hogwarts, we know some things about Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington (a.k.a. "Nearly Headless Nick"), the Gryffindor House ghost, especially from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets, the JKR.com website (the ballad of his nearly-headless history), and The Tales of Beedle the Bard, where a footnote indicates that in the fifteenth century, Nick had been killed by Muggle persecution, after having once been a member of the Royal Court) (Beedle 12). We don't really know that much about the Fat Friar (the Ghost of Hufflepuff House). The question I wish to ponder today is a small one, but may relate to a larger theme in the Potter series, and that question is the following:
Why did the Gray Lady, Helena Ravenclaw, hide the Ravenclaw Diadem in a hollow tree in Albania?
Why the hollow tree?
Why did she (and J. K. Rowling for her story) choose Albania?
First of all, we must backtrack and find out what Helena did tell Harry in those hectic moments during the Battle of Hogwarts. That information is located on pages 615-617 in the American hardcover edition of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. To summarize, the Gray Lady's story goes like this:
1. The Ravenclaw Diadem originally belonged to Helena's mother, Rowena. (p.
615)
2. "...the diadem bestows wisdom..." (p. 615)
3. Helena had stolen the diadem from her mother out of jealousy. "I
sought to make myself cleverer, more important than my mother." (p.
616)
4. Helena ran away from her mother, Rowena. Rowena Ravenclaw,
herself, pretended that the diadem was not missing, and none of the other
founders knew this. (p. 616)
5. Rowena Ravenclaw, on her deathbed, wished to see her daughter one more
time and sent the Bloody Baron (the Slytherin House ghost) to find Helena. (p.
616)
6. The baron was obsessed with Helena (unrequited love) for some time;
Rowena knew this. (p. 616)
7. Helena is found by the Baron, refuses him, and is stabbed by him to
death. "He tracked me to the forest where I was hiding. When I
refused to return with him, he became violent. The Baron was always a
hot-tempered man. Furious at my refusal, jealous of my freedom, he stabbed
me." (p. 616)
8. The Baron then committed suicide, and his ghost wears chains as
penitence for his actions in life. "When he saw what he had done, he was
overcome with remorse. He took the weapon that had claimed my life, and
used it to kill himself. All these centuries later, he wears his chains as
an act of penitence... as he should." (p. 616)9. Helena had hidden the diadem in a hollow tree when she heard the Baron coming towards her. "[The diadem] remained where I had hidden it when I heard the Baron blundering through the forest toward me. Concealed inside a hollow tree." (p. 617) This implies that the diadem did not usually remain hidden, or she did not have the time to retrieve it, or that she chose to conceal it.
10. Helena reveals that the hollow tree was in a forest in Albania, a place in her words which was "a lonely place I thought was far beyond my mother's reach." (p. 617)
There are very big themes in this small passage that Rowling is sharing with her readers through Helena's story. Themes of jealousy, love, passion, betrayal, penitence, the power of will and of knowledge, depression and loneliness. One has to read between the lines here: what was Rowling asking us, as readers, to really ponder here?
We have to deal with the major points of this story, the first two points of which is that the Ravenclaw Diadem had belonged to one of the Four Founders of Hogwarts, and was rumored to "bestow wisdom." In Geo Athena Trevarthen's book, The Seeker's Guide to Harry Potter, there is a discussion on the Hogwarts Houses in the third chapter, entitled "Four Houses, Four Elements." Professor Trevarthen discusses the totemic animal, of Ravenclaw, the eagle, and the raven (from the name of the house) and their traditional meanings in various folk cultures. She then begins a discussion of Ravenclaw house and its key characters in the books, notably Cho, Luna and Professor Flitwick. She doesn't really mention Helena, or Rowena, the founder. But what she does say about Ravenclaw relates to Ravenclaw's motto engraved on the diadem, "Wit beyond measure is man's greatest treasure." Her explanation of Ravenclaw's house qualities and magical precept is this:
"Wizards must know themselves, know magic, and know the world. Their
knowledge must encompass the unpleasant curses they may be hit with 'out there'
and other unsavory information, like their own deepest fears... What's
more, the knowledge must be of a specific kind, personal and practical..."
(Trevarthen 65).
Professor Trevarthen later goes on to say that to be a wizard means "someone who has personal knowledge, often, knowledge of the sacred. A wizard is a person who can see spiritual reality personally and vividly and who is informed by this experience, so that he becomes wise." (Trevarthen 66).
An object, like the Ravenclaw diadem, that bestows consciousness of oneself so that they become wise, instead of the person themselves journeying through life to become wise (and so not needing such an object), is both a symbol of power and beauty and on a practical level, a dangerous object indeed. To bestow wisdom... perhaps before a person is ready for that kind of understanding? In the summary of the story, point three (above) reminds us that Helena had stolen the diadem from her mother out of jealousy. What stopped her from wearing it? And as noted above, Rowling's words imply that the diadem may not have always been hidden. Why did Helena really flee? Was she fleeing her mother's anger at her thievery? This seems improbable; Rowena never made any mention of it being missing (point four).
And then Helena fled to a lonely place. The diadem had bestowed wisdom upon Helena of, as Prof. Trevarthen noted, "knowledge of the sacred... to see spiritual reality personally and vividly and who is informed by this experience." But Helena didn't become wise by figuring this out herself. She was granted wisdom, and hence learned this about herself. What was her spiritual reality on a personal level? Out of jealousy (greed and envy come to mind) she stole from her own mother a great item so that she could become better than her mother. Her want of knowledge stemmed directly from the will to be better, more clever, more powerful than her own family.
So why did she flee? She fled to a lonely place, where she thought the diadem could be hidden, where she could hide. I believe that she fled because upon learning so much, so quickly about herself, she was ashamed, and depressed, and her penitence was to spend the remainder of her life alone in that forest in Albania.
For how do you stumble upon a hollow tree? You don't. Helena spent a long time hiding there.
Her mother, on the other hand, became wise through the course of her long life. She didn't send the Baron to find her daughter in any immediate time after the diadem was stolen (though of course, we don't know how much time elapsed between the thievery and Rowena's fatal illness). But I believe that the writing implies that much time had passed. She only sent the Baron when she was on her deathbed and wished to see her daughter. She had, no doubt, become wise without the aid of the diadem, figured out what her daughter had done, and figured the one place on the earth (note Prof. Trevarthen's words "know the world") where her daughter would be.
So the question is mostly answered about "why the hollow tree?" Helena had been in that forest for quite a while. And the symbolism of a hollow tree is also a big point here - Helena, upon being granted wisdom from the diadem knew herself to be shallow and empty for the deed she had done - she herself was hollow. Trees can certainly symbolize natural life and knowledge; for a tree to be hollow... I am sure you will like to ponder this point for yourself. But to understand why Rowling chose Albania as the location of the forest, we have to "know the world." What do we know about Albania?
I read in an essay entitled "The Peasant, the Tramp and Hepzibah Smith: A Horcrux Cas Study" by WaggaWaggaWerewolf (available at http://www.the-leaky-cauldron.org/features/essays/issue22/HorcruxCaseStudy) that "[t]he Sorting Hat gives some clues when it associates Ravenclaw with mountains and eagles. Albania is a small, isolated, and rather poor country, named for its mountainous terrain, which is heavily forested in places. The people who live there speak a language similar to the one spoken by hardworking Ancient Trojans, and in that language, Albania... translates as the Land of the Eagles. Albanian members of the cult of the snake consider it an important household benefactor." The author then goes on to ponder whether or not this is where the idea for the snake nailed to the door at the Gaunt house came from and what exactly drew Voldemort to stay there in isolation for ten years.
Rowena, becoming wise on her deathbed, no doubt knew that her "wise" daughter would go to the "Land of the Eagles." It is also no wonder why her daughter, then, is named Helena. The story of "Helen of Troy" comes to mind here. And in the Gray Lady's story, Rowena may have considered "the snake" a.k.a. the Bloody Baron, a "household benefactor," whom she hoped to use to repair her household, alas to no avail.
But to bring us back to the original question? Why did the Gray Lady hide the Ravenclaw Diadem in a hollow tree in Albania? Because she was ashamed of herself, and what she had done. She had gained this personal knowledge by becoming wise, and fled to the ancient "Land of the Eagles" to repent her sin. Later, upon forgiving her daughter, Rowena (at the end of her life) sent the Baron (the "household benefactor" snake) to retrieve her daughter, for she had become wise as to the same premature knowledge Helena had gained of the "Land of the Eagles." She probably also fully understood, at that point in her life, the words "Where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Didn't Rowling state that out of the two biblical passages she presents in Deathly Hallows, that one sums up about half of the whole story?
This doesn't even skim the surface, though, of the whole story between the Baron and the Gray Lady, of which I haven't even begun to analyze, and I won't do right now. But I do believe that there are parallels, and very obvious ones here, between the character of the Bloody Baron and Severus Snape. With the exception that Snape, I believe, "will have gone on" in Nick's words (Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix). I'll leave that discussion for another time.
I hope you've enjoyed my efforts at analysis. :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
