FAQF -- The Universal Appeal of Harry Potter

[frantyck at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 23571

prefectmarcus wrote:
> Rowling never takes the easy way out.  The characters are not 
solely good, bad, evil, or righteous.  They all, with the sole 
exception of Voldemort, are combinations of shades of meanings and 
actions.

that is true... but even voldemort wasn't always evil, was he? i 
don't understand the origins of voldemort; in CoS he's a teenager, 
but somehow his consciousness is not that of a teenager, even though 
the tom riddle harry sees when he falls into riddle's diary *is* a 
child.

was he always, or did he become?

prefectmarcus wrote:
How to explain the transition of Severus Snape? ... Only our 
perception has changed.
> Neville Longbottom is another. ... by the end book four, he is 
shown to have a great deal of courage and fortitude.

interesting point. i think this may be because rowling isn't the 
omniscient narrator; she relays events as they unfold, never stepping 
ahead. so, what the characters appear to be like depends entirely on 
the way they are *shown* to behave.

prefectmarcus wrote:
>She gradually serves up her delights one at a time so that each 
morsel can be dwelt over and savoured.  She slower but surely draws 
back the curtain on her world, showing us piece after exquisitely 
crafted piece, sometimes not letting us realize their individual 
worth until after they are all presented.

one thing she does show fine taste in is not overplaying any one 
element or good idea. there's a lot of clever background detail, such 
as butterbeer and the jelly-legs curse, broomstick servicing kits, 
etc. that she puts in but doesn't go on about.

prefectmarcus wrote:
> So why are they popular?  I have no answer.

not true!

rrishi