Titling convention significant?

[sbursztynski]

No: HPFGUIDX 89587

--- In HPforGrownups at yahoogroups.com, "Amy Z" <lupinesque at y...> wrote:
> Over on OTC, we've been playing a game of inventing future HP 
> titles.  It was quickly determined that "Harry Potter and the . . . 
" 
> is all but required, which clicked with a late-night idea in my 
head....<Snip>
> 
>
> 
> Well, what if that's all a huge setup for the big surprise in Book 
> Seven:  that Harry is not after all the center of the series?  That 
> the whole story has been about the development of that other July-
> born son of Order parents?  Why would JKR even introduce the idea 
> that it could have been Neville, as she's just done in OoP, if it 
> isn't going to mean something?  What if everyone's wrong and it 
> really is Neville who must and will defeat the Dark Lord?*  The 
> ultimate way to symbolize that would be to name the book after the 
> true center of the story.  


Sue B:

Or what if it's all just a case of the publisher wanting the titles 
that way so as to sell more books? Sorry to throw cold water on this 
idea (unless it's tongue-in-cheek), but sometimes a title is just a 
title. I've written some books myself and I know that publishers will 
set the title as they think best.

And when you have a major series, being followed by millions of 
people, you do tend to do it as "so-and-so and..." There's plenty of 
them around. There's no reason for it to have any other significance.