If there was only one HP panel...

[Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)]

--- In HP4GU-California at yahoogroups.com, Carolyn Kayta Barrows
<Kayta at F...> wrote:
<< If there was only one Harry Potter discussion panel at a
fantasy/science fiction convention, what should that panel be about? 
Should it be about the costuming, or on some other specific topic, or
speculation about what will be in books 6 and/or 7, or just a casual
get together where general topics are discussed? >>

It shouldn't be about costuming unless there are a lot of costumers in
the potential audience, and it may well turn into a casual gathering
discussing general topics regardless of what it is designed to be
about. I think panels at sf con tend to have the 'moderator' state a
question and the panelists take turns answering it and the third or
fourth panelist says 'What they said". It might be better if each
panelist gave a short prepared talk before the questions began -- the
moderator could ask what they thought of each other's theories.

Possibly my favorite HP presentation ever was attorney Susan Hall's
talk at Nimbus on how the pathetic-ness of the rule of law in
Wizarding Britain is related to the low point of rule of law in Muggle
(historical) Britain at the time the Statute of Wizarding Secrecy
sign-posted the separation of the two worlds. 

It might be possible to turn that into a panel on 'Law in Harry
Potter's Wizarding World' (or 'Law and Government in Harry Potter's
Wizarding World). Maybe one panelist presenting the major ways in
which Wizarding Law differs from modern Muggle law, and Hall's points
about it more resembles mid-18th century law. Another panelist
presenting the idea (it is an essay on-line somewhere) that the rule
of law has been suspended in Wizarding Britain under State of
Emergency principles since the Statute of Wizarding Secrecy was
passed. Another panelist on laws that may be inherent in Potterverse
magic, such as magically binding contracts -- how can Harry be bound
by someone else putting his name into the Goblet of Fire without his
knowledge? What makes Unforgivable Curses unforgivable, and what makes
Dark Magic dark? Someone pontificating on the tangle of international
wizarding organizations, treaties, etc could be squeezed in here to
increase the number of panelists. 

Related topic: "Muggle Politics in J.K.Rowling's Fantasy Stories" --
does the House Elf situation refer to slavery, social class,
housewives? What should  we take from Dumbledore's statement that
Kreachur is what wizards have made him, and why does no one sympathize
with SPEW?  Are there bits mocking Thatcherism that non-UK readers
just overlook? Wizards' prejudices regarding Giants, Goblins, Veelas:
are they valid or just racism? What is the message about killing bad
guys and capital punishment? Ordinarily I'd shy away from a topic that
would get the red half of the population so riled up (calling the
presentation "Muggle Political Correctness" is the *least* they would
do) but here I'm just babbling.

There are books declaring the Potter ouevre to be Christian or Stoic
or Freudian or Alchemical allegory (as well as political allegory,
above) and those who trace similarities to 19th century novels. Maybe
you could gather together proponents of some of these different ideas
and have them argue.