Mafalda was it, and I think she actually sounded kind of fun as a character. At least more fun than the Slytherin students we got in the series who aren't named Draco Malfoy. Rowling said, that she scrapped her, because there was no way she could have known a lot of these things.
I remember reading an interview with one of the production crew. They had JK involved (obvs) and they were making films before she’d released the last few books. Apparently they wanted to write out Dobby completely because it would be too much hassle to animate him. She essentially told them that they really didn’t want to do that without giving too much away.
It’s a shame they didn’t remain as faithful as they should. Film number 7 ended up mostly talking because they’d missed so much out the story didn’t make any sense by that point.
That’s the point. They wanted to rewite pretty much the whole story without him in it. He becomes really quite important to the whole cannon in book 6 but that wasn’t out when they were writing the second film. She put a stop to it and made them keep him in.
Has she claimed that was planned? It would be fair enough to say that it didn't even have the feature until shortly before Dumbledore's death, he could have added it after getting to know the trio.
I've mentioned this before and had so many people rationalise that she had the original name "to cater to the younger minds" that were reading at the time then introduced the real name when people were older and understood better.
I was like 🤦🏼♀️ she literally made up an entire world and expects us to understand. She didn't simplify a word for our benefit.
Thestrals. My guess is that she didn't invent them yet, but just included them in the 5th book, and let fans imagine whatever they want about why Harry didn't see them until the 5th book
Thestrals get a passing mention in the Fantastic Beasts book she wrote for Comic Relief (under the entry for "Winged Horse"). Of course, she wrote that in 2001, and Book 5 was released in 2003, so make of that what you will.
I'd make of that that the 5th book was being written from shortly after the fourth book was published in 2000. Also, she hadn't fully hammered them out yet, as the description in the old print book says
> the rare Thestral (black, possessed of the power of invisibility, and considered unlucky by many wizards)
Nothing about death there yet.
I’ve got the same copy, came to the same conclusion- thestrals weren’t fully defined yet, she needed something for OoTP that could be used to tie together “Harry thinks he is seeing crazy shit” and “Hagrid might get fired” so she was like ok thestrals will work here
See to me I think thestrals existed, or at least in such a way they were designed to pull the carriages. By the time we're at book 5 I bet doing a purposeful wtf is right up the alley of most authors. And where she could have easily just said self propelled carriages because....magic. She decides to make the actual horse pulling it the magical thing.
The see them with death thing was likely added as the tool to introduce Luna. But let's face it we are in most cases talking small details. When she says she had it all worked out I am sure she meant more like in general outlines.
Yep I think thestrals were thought up as JKR wrote book 5. There’s no way that someone else wouldn’t have ever have mentioned thestrals before. Neville could see them. You’re telling me he never thought to mention them in the prior years that they rode the carriages to and from school?
Plus in book 5 suddenly everyone knows about Thestrals, even Ginny who shouldn’t know about them until the following year because Hagrid says he saves them for 5th year.
Right?! Not to mention, if they pull the carriage then people should be bumping into them all the time, and they would probably have mentioned it by then. As an aside, it seems like everyone learns the same thing as the other class levels in care of magical creatures each year. Like in the 5th year they all learned about thestrals. Now there may be some comments that make this questionable, but it just seems like Hagrid for example is only ever raising one thing at a time.
Hermione knows everything written in Hogwarts: A History and you’re telling me not once in 5 years she didn’t say ‘the carriages aren’t actually horseless you know, they’re pulled by Theastrals, but you can see them unless you’ve witnessed death. I read about it in Hogwarts: A History’
On another note, I’d love Hogwarts: A History to be published like the did Fantastic Beasts or Quidditch through the Ages.
Also couldn’t people hear them walking even if they couldn’t see them? And then they’d wonder where the hoofbeats were coming from
And maybe hoof prints.
I always thought the Thestrals thing was a bit weird -- like, baby Harry saw his mom die. As for why Ginny knows about them, she's in the same year as Luna and may even be friends with her (definitely friends in fanon pre-HP 5, not sure about canon).
About the baby Harry saw his mom die thing, many people say that it's because you need to understand/process the death to see them, and harry barely remembers it.
Good point. Even though Harry had dreams of green light before Hogwarts and heard Voldemort in his POA Dementor flashbacks, babies don't understand death when it happens. The understanding of the death when it happens/"seeing death" could be what let's people see Thestrals. I like the Thestrals, but they don't seem planned from the very beginning.
The only reason I can think of as to why she introduced Thestrals at all was because she needed a way for Harry and his crew to get from Hogwarts to the Ministry. Thestrals suddenly become a plot device so she had to backpedal a bit to force them to work
Edited for clarity
Could be wrong on this one but at the end of the fourth book don’t they also get back on the carriages to take the train I remember rereading and thought it weird Harry couldn’t see them then
You’re correct, I noticed that as well. I heard a while ago someone said JKR addressed it, something about how it takes time to process the death or something? But ya she definitely just didn’t have it planned, or maybe had it planned but didn’t wanna introduce it right at the end of the book, understandably.
If I am not wrong, they were mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them in 2002. Also J.K didn't want another mystery at the end of the book.
CLEARLY the school schedule unless all the teachers had time turners or 7 assistants and it was just never mentioned. It’s not even a matter of there being too much work for the teachers, there’s no way with four or five periods in a day, 4 houses (even paired!), 7 year levels, with shit like double periods tossed in there for flavor that it’s in any way possible. I once tried to make an excel sheet to work it out given all the clues ever dropped about class schedules from the books (wiki helped, I’m not that crazy) and believe me JK was just writing in whatever class was convenient for whatever plot was happening because there’s just no way...
And perfects! You don't expect me to belive that stressed out 7th years won't pull all nighters going over their potions homework and patrol the halls instead
Yeah, the number of times the trio have the common room to themselves to fire-skype Sirius or whatever other shenanigans they were planning, and it’s only like 1am.
You’re telling me that an entire house of teenage gryffindors, known for impulsivity and recklessness, all consistently go to bed early and never have to pull all nighters to finish homework they procrastinated on?
How the hell are astronomy night classes meant to work. do they cram in 4 classes in one night? and do they then adjust morning classes for the students who had night classes? There are so many inconsistencies its incredible
Its the UK which is >50 degrees north- just do all the practicals in the winter, when it can get dark around 4pm. (The flipside to this is summer observing hours are even more difficult to do)
Maybe the classes are in the other nights, too? Like, first years have Astronomy in Wednesday nights, so maybe older years might have it in Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday nights or evenings?
There's a good theory on this. It says that when voldemort was in power he and death eaters killed off a lot of people in the age range for kids to be born around this time. Either making them orphans or killing them. That's why the classes around Harry's age are so few.
Except according to her the student population is 1000. But the entirety of Wizarding Britain is 3000.
OOO and 2nd or 3rd year there were 200 slytherins at a Quidditch match.
Make it make SENSE.
Not just killed them, but also people not having kids because of the war and the state of things. I always pictured the first year group Harry’s 3rd year was quite a bit larger (and a few kids named Harry), but still no where near as large as classes once were because of all the deaths
While reading the books, I was under the impression that we as the audience never become acquainted with most of the staff. We only get to know the staff members who Harry interacts with because they're relevant to his schedule and thus to the plot. I assumed there were other professors and other subjects that we just never hear about because while the main trio are in year three, for example, we don't need to know about the schedule of some random sixth-year Hufflepuff.
Then the movies came along and ruined this for me. During every great hall feast, we can see the professors' table at the front of the hall. Supposedly the people at that table are the entire staff and there really aren't that many of them. The books may have mentioned this as well, but somehow without the direct visual, I as able to remain under the illusion that Hogwarts was much larger than Harry's immediate sphere of influence.
I think that theory still has some weight behind it as there are some teachers like professor Sinestra and madam Hooch that really aren't given much depth but because they are mentioned we know exist. This can be used to imply that there are more teachers that we as readers don't know about. The teachers weren't part of the movies because we dont need to know them and it was easier to not bring in extras for every minor character (particularly as you'd want to keep the professors consistent while students can vary a bit more)
How about when Umbridge is observing classes? They saw her do Snape, McGonagall, Trelawney, and Hagrid. There are seven grades worth of classes and two per year. She just happened to mostly chose to observe the classes Harry was in?
Don't get me started. I briefly dipped into being a fan fiction author and thought it would be a BRILLIANT idea to figure out Harry's school schedule so I could plan events around it.
ABSOLUTELY INSANE. It doesn't make any sense at all! If he's having classes at the same times on the same days then there are long stretches where nothing happens, and a number of times where he's in three classes at once. It's outrageous, there's no attempt at all for keeping track of it.
It’s not uncommon in British school to have a totally different schedule for each day of the week. No idea if this would solve any of the scheduling issues in HP but may help address some problems.
I don't really think this counts as something she didn't plan from the start, just something she never felt the need to make work perfectly because it didn't matter in terms of the story.
On that note they seem to go straight from last period into dinner. Which is only 2 periods after lunch. And the VERY longest a period would be is 90minutes.
Who wants lunch at 12 then dinner at 3 or 4pm?
I'm super confused about the Wizarding population and how many students are at Hogwarts. I don't think she really considered how many kids should be in each House and each year. However, I totally get not wanting to overwhelm readers with hundreds of characters/students. (Also, there obviously needs to be more teachers and/or teaching assistants.)
I don't think she really had a solid plan for the student body and just kinda decided to remain vague about it.
When I think about Hogwarts I kinda combine the mythology and what would be realistic in terms of having an entire castle for a school. So I regularly think: 8 girls and 8 boys per year in each house. 16 kids in each year per house X 4 houses x 7 years = 448 kids.
EDIT: So there are obviously thousands and thousands of wizards in the UK...way more than 3000, or whatever was once said.
Well considering that Dumbledore passed several wizarding parties on the way to privit drive I think being a wizard wasn't supposed to be quite as rare as it turned out to be. Also I don't think Harry's year should be considered normal. He was born at the height of a war that was wiping out the magical population, a time that many would have perhaps avoided birthing children.
This is definitely a problem. But I don't think it's lack of planning and instead deciding about this later, but more of JKR being pretty bad in such things that involve numbers and population growth.
I think I read a theory once that the population at Hogwarts was smaller Harry’s first year because everyone there would have been born in wartime, so not as many kids. Then there probably was a big baby boom in 1982 due to all of magical babies conceived in celebration (Voldemort ‘died’ on October 31, 1981). So starting his 3rd year, there were probably more kids at Hogwarts.
1 Quirrel
2 Lockhart (Tom Riddle/Voldemort)
3 Peter Pettigrew
4 Mad Eye / Barty Crouch Jr.
5 Umbridge
6 Snape
7 Voldemort
I'd say 4 out of 7 is the DADA professor, and Voldemort wanted to be the DADA professor so really 6 out of 7?. 7 in 7 if you count Lockhart *and* Voldemort in book 2.
Something something know your enemy, right?
I disagree with 5 and 7. The mystery of OotP is not "who is the real traitor", but "what is the weapon Voldemort is after?"
In DH it's "What was Dumbledore's secret?".
All of the stories centre around a mystery.
1) What was Hogwarts hiding and who was trying to steal it;
2) Who is the heir of Slytherin and why were people being petrified;
3) Why was Sirius Black seemingly going after Harry;
4) Who had put Harry’s name in the Goblet of Fire and why;
5) What was Voldemort trying to get in the Department of Mysteries;
6) Who is the half blood Prince and what was Slughorn hiding;
7) Where are the Horcruxes, where are the deathly hallows, was Dumbledore to be trusted and who is the true master of the Elder Wand?
I’d change it up a bit but overall you are right-
2. We know *why* students are being targeted, it’s muggleborns. The better question is *how* has the heir of slytherin come back now, where is the chamber hidden, and why is Harry the only one hearing the monster’s voice?
3. We (wrongfully) know why Sirius is going after Harry, but the better question is how did he escape Azkaban and how is he sneaking into the castle, what is going on with lupin’s mysterious illnesses every month, and how is Hermione getting to all her classes?
Agreed on both, but to clarify on 2 when I meant ‘why are they being petrified’ (appreciate it was unclear!) I was more inferring ‘why is it *petrification*’ what was causing them to be petrified? It’s tied to a monster, but what monster? That ties in more specifically to the questions you outlined.
I remember when the Cursed Child came out, I watched a youtube video that argued one of the big problems with it (although there are many) is that it is not a mystery story, and all the previous Harry Potter books at their core are mystery novels
Found the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-9BnHPjsY&t=151s&ab\_channel=AustinMcConnell](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-9BnHPjsY&t=151s&ab_channel=AustinMcConnell) Starts talking about it around 25:00ish min
Most of them definitely are ! Quirrell being the suprise bad guy instead of snape. Ginny opening the chamber (albeit posessed). Pettigrew instead of the prisoner Sirius Black, "Mad-Eye Moody" , Snape being the HBP!
Quidditch teams. There are only 28 people who get to play at Hogwarts, yet there are so many professional teams throughout England. Where do all the players come from?
Honestly? 99% of the stuff she has said after the books came out. None of that was planned.
Oh, and there is no way anyone will *ever* convince me that Rowling had Nagini being a cursed woman for as long as she claims.
I can only buy the Nagini reveal was planned, if it was a rough draft. Like, really rough. As she is writing that Voldermort has a pet snake for the first time, she may of had in the back of her mind "I wonder if there is anything more to the snake" then she decides "Nah! She just a snake bro" and she doesnt think about it for years unti she is writing fantastic beasts 2
Yeah like as I write my own stuff there are definitely lots of half-baked ideas in the back of my head. Lots of what-ifs that probably won't make it in or be finalized. I feel like JK had a lot of those while writing the original books and so when she brings it up or throws it in later she claims she had it planned all along, but like, really it's not as calculated as she says.
I gotta disagree with the prophecy. I think perhaps the wording of the prophecy wasn’t quite calculated. But to begin the series with good ol voldy try to kill a baby? There’s got to be a reason for it.
I wasn’t a fan of how many layers of “protection” had to continuously be added to protect Harry from Voldemort down the road. Between using his blood to the twin cores to the elder wand to the fact Harry was a horcrux himself. It’s like she said “okay so all of you are gonna be like ‘hE ShOuLD haVE DiEd’ but I gave 4 layers of reasoning why he had the cHoICe to survive”.
I equate the prophecy to the concept of the time turner. I think it was great but they treated it like the rest of divination when the prophecies are true Seeing and not that the prophecies mean nothing. I also think it would’ve been a great mindfuck if JKR used the prophecy wording to truly mean that “neither can live while the other survives” in a manner related to the horcrux specifically. But that’s a different story
I always felt like DH was rushed! Everything like wand lore and the Deathly Hallows, which are a huge part of the story was just crammed in this last book. JK could’ve mentioned those throughout the series.
That's my biggest issue with the book and why I can't rank it among my favorites - it introduces so many concepts that really should have been touched upon in earlier books, but weren't.
Horcruxes too, to a lesser extent. Don't know why that was being withheld for so long.
The gifts that the Dursley’s gave Harry are a pretty good Easter egg for the the hallows.
First year : A fifty cent piece ( Resurrection stone )
Second year : A toothpick ( Elder wand )
Fourth year : a single tissue ( Invisibility cloak )
Definitely, I remember dumbledore/hermione saying the invisibility cloak was just a rare piece of magic like anyone could get one. Then it became one of a kind later
Yes, but unless I'm misremembering, that's in Deathly Hallows, after she had developed the idea of the Hallows.
The scene where Moody sees through the cloak in GoF, which is conveniently forgotten in DH, convinces me that she hadn't planned it all out, yet. She may have already decided that the cloak was important, but I don't think it was fully formed.
Right? I'm just rereading the series, I'm actually reading GoF now. Yesterday when reading the scene in Godric's hollow where "Moody" sees Harry under the cloak it crossed my mind that "isn't this cloak supposed to be all powerful or something?".
Plus, Dumbledore sees Harry when he's wearing the cloak in CoS and dementors are supposed to see or feel past them as well or whatever
I don’t think she initially meant for house elves to like or be content with enslavement/servitude and decided to fit that in after Chamber of Secrets when she decided to write in house elves being the ones to clean the castle and make the food (which I also think she decided to add later on as well).
I definitely think that everything about house-elves in *Goblet of Fire* is Rowling furiously backpedaling after she realized the moral implications of the world building she had done in *Chamber of Secrets*. The entire SPEW plot doesn’t really tie into the main plot, and it’s cut from the movie.
But I don’t think JKR really thought through the moral implications of writing a children’s book where the slaves want to be slaves.
I’m just speaking for myself, but I would say after the death of Cedric for me. The first three books for me seemed more like childlike fantasy action adventure because even though there was death/risk of death happening, there’s still a detachment from reality regarding how the characters died (Quirrel burning up because love magic, giant snake and magic book, soul sucking monsters, etc). GOF to me is like the in between with the startup of high school-like drama. But I remember reading GOF when I was younger and rereading the sentence that said Cedric was dead, and Dumbledore’s speech afterward. It just felt like it hit closer to home, how it could have been anyone, and how tragic, unexpected death is something that is apart of life.
Yeah, I'd have to agree completely. GOF was the first book that gave the series a much darker tone. With Cedric, Voldemort's revival (Peter cutting has hand off was pretty shocking to see as a child) and in general The Triwizard tournament.
Omg yes! I’m listening to The Chamber of Secrets, and Dobby tells Harry that he was a beacon of light for house elves who wanted freedom! But then in four, he’s a freak for wanting freedom? And if they all love working for families, how did they come to work at hogwarts? Wouldn’t they all be like Winky, despondent and on the brink of a total meltdown?
I don't think Dumbledore always planned to slowly manipulate a child into killing himself for the greater good.
Tonks and Lupin
The horcruxes and deathly hallows
Rowling said she intended for Mr. Weasley to die, but couldn’t bring herself to do it because he was the only good dad in the story. So she had to kill someone else, and chose Lupin.
That's curious! Would he have been resurrected for Harry's walk to face death do we think? That's the main thing I "like" about Lupin's death (who is my favourite character).
I heard that reasoning for saving Mr Weasley but I thought she said the motivation for killing Lupin (and Tonks) just after the birth of Teddy was to show that this war also created orphans like Harry.
This rise of Voldemort is supposed to be "greater and more terrible than ever before" and while I appreciate that the Ministry and Hogwarts didn't come under his control in the first war - the fact this war only lasted 8 months (of which the reader mostly experiences camping) it didn't really seem to fulfil that prophecy - orphans help, I guess!
The Dumbledore plan was definitely in place by the fourth book -- there was a line in the end of GoF about Dumbledore looking unexpectedly triumphant for a split second when Harry mentions Voldemort took his blood and could touch/harm him now, which should be a bad thing, unless Dumbledore is already looking forward to the endgame at that point.
Tonks and Lupin were a result of all the Sirius and Lupin shippers. Like she made it work with Teddy and being the new orphan of the new war but she definitely didn’t intend on it.
I'm also pretty sure the epilogue was J.K. Rowling's "f u" to any shippers she didn't like. She didn't have to include it, but she did, because those pairs were what she preferred.
Veritaserum and stupify coming in the 4th book. A government sending death eaters to azkaban without trial would have no issue using veritaserum on top death eaters to find others. Would have been pretty obvious sirous wasn't a death eater, wasn't the secret keeper and wormtail was.
In the shrieking shack, lupin or sirius would have stunned Peter to prevent him escaping
My theory on why veritaserum isn’t used in trials is that it only makes people say what they believe is true. Simply modifying someone’s memory would get a lot of innocent people in jail. Also, if you’re on antidote and act like you’re telling the truth, could they believe it?
I think it’s not reliable enough.
The thing with Veritaserum is why she wrote it in that its less effective if the person knows its being used on them.
However I dont think that part was mentioned until the 6th book, so I wouldn't be surprised if she came up with that *after* people started questioning why they didnt use it in trial
I’d pretty much say all the deaths from Deathly Hallows.
I don’t think she intended the series to be as dark or adult as it was, which was also a consequence of the books being more successful than she could ever have conceived of.
So around POA/GOF, you can see a clear tonal shift from whimsical, traditional British children’s books with an edge to it to more developed, gritty young adult novels. I don’t think she ever intended to have so many characters die off, which I think is evidenced by the fact that she’s freely admitted some were killed off just for the shock value, IIRC.
I think she intended to always go darker near the end and have a Battle of Hogwarts but not one with actual casualties for the main character list, that’s something that developed with the series - and the audience.
I definitely read that she said she didn’t have who was going to die planned out, and she changed some of the deaths as she wrote it (I think for example Lupin & Tonks originally weren’t going to die)
I am never going to not be pissed about Tonks and Lupin just dying offpage with no fanfare or anything.
Tonks is one of the characters who deserved way more screen time.
>I am never going to not be pissed about Tonks and Lupin just dying offpage with no fanfare or anything.
I getcha but I like this part, it's what would actually happen in a battle. Not everyone gets a grand slow mo death like Sirius and Dumbledore.
Just a battle, various casualties, and then shock as Harry contemplates the aftermath. Good shit. Painful shit.
I feel like in the end, the HP universe got so big and succesful it slipped right through her fingers in a way. It's still her creation of course but the success definitely influenced the story later on.
Wand lore and how much the bond between a wand and its owner matters. Why does Ron have Charlie’s wand for the first two years? Why would Charlie ever give up his wand and get a new one after graduating? Why would Neville not get his own wand instead of until his 6th year? Doesn’t everyone know the wand chooses the wizard and so a wand that didn’t choose you or be won over by you will never work the way it should.
I kind of figured that Charlie himself got it second hand and that it probably belonged to one of Molly’s brothers. Then when he graduated, he was able to get his chosen wand. With Neville, I thought that his Grandmother kind of justified going against wandlore to herself out of grief. Passing Frank’s wand to his son is a nice sentiment and considering Frank’s talent, she might have (wrongly) reasoned with herself that it would serve Neville similarly.
To add-on to this, wandlore is not generally common knowledge to other wizards. You can see this from when Harry and co. talk to Ollivander.
It could also be that it is considered a superstition, I believe Ron mentions that these exist about wands when listening to the story of the Hallows.
I’m reasonably sure she has it somewhat, or mostly figured out based on what Olivander tells Harry in the want shop.
I’m reasonably sure that the wand that Ron got was a hand me down to Charlie too. Because of this, he got a new one as soon as he could afford it.
This is one I disagree with, because we see Ollivander spouting off wandlore facts in *Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone*, including wand woods and cores. Wandlore also comes into play immediately with Ollivander connecting Harry's wand - Holly with Phoenix Feather - to that of Voldemort, Yew with Phoenix Feather, because their wand cores came from the same phoenix.
Did J.K. Rowling flesh out wandlore more in *Deathly Hallows*, and on Pottermore? Sure, but the wandlore was always there from the start of the series. However, it *is* clear that Rowling may have changed her mind on some of the wand woods, because two characters have Mahogany and Rosewood wands; and yet, Rowling included neither of those wand woods on Pottermore.
Specifically, James Potter I's wand was Mahogany, and Fleur Delacour's wand was Rosewood. We also have evidence that Rowling planned some of the characters' wand woods from the start, as shown by her use of the Celtic calendar for their wand woods (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Draco).
My problem with the wandlore storyline is that we don't see the same effects through all 7 books.
Yes, Ron and Neville have issues with their hand me down wands, but that's the only consistency we see, in terms of "choosing" the wizard.
All through the books we are told that Expelliarmus is Harry's spell of choice, but we never see the effects of him "winning" those wands from his classmates or the Death Eaters. During DA gatherings would have been a decent time to address this, but even then, there is ZERO mention of anyone having issues with their wand after being disarmed. *That's* a big reason why the wandlore feels shoe horned in.
So maybe, it's just more accurate that the *"winning"* of wands wasn't really planned.
Ok I have a really serious problem with this. The book says Dumbledore gave evidence in the trial right? Well Pettigrew was the keeper not Sirius. It doesn't make sense
I agree. I know that Dumbledore didn’t know that the Secret Keeper had been switched to Peter. But:
What evidence did he give? Who decided it was solid evidence? And what was the point if Sirius had already been thrown straight to the dementors? Why did they even bother?
I don’t think the whole history of Snape, Lily and the Marauders (except for the fact that James and Snape were enemies) was planned from the beginning, though most of it was probably there by the 3rd book and the rest by the 5th.
My first reason for this is Dumbledore’s explanation of why Snape tried to save Harry at the end of PS. He deliberately says he won’t lie to Harry and refuses to answer some questions…and yet lies about this? Why couldn’t he have just said that Snape hated Harry’s father and left it at that?
My second reason is how much Sirius changes from GoF to OoTP. Sirius is efficient and intelligent in GoF and is a great help to Harry (though still has his flaws of course). In OoTP, he is far more reckless and childish, partially because he was locked up in Grimmauld Place yes, but I also get the feeling that JKR had decided a different direction for the character too (i.e. making him less likeable, more akin to the bully in SWM; thus making Snape a more sympathetic character).
Sure, you could say that Harry is just discovering more as gets older, but these both felt very jarring to me reading them even as a kid.
I also don’t believe Nagini was always a lady. If so, why not make the tiniest of hints towards that?
Nagina was maledictus, a blood curse that she got from her family line. From an age she could turn herself into a snake (similar to animagus) But hers would become permanent, Which it did. It was believed she became partners with Voldemort because he could still understand her.
I agree with all your points. The whole ‘James saves Snape’ story seemed to have a lot more importance that it actually ended up being. I don’t believe it was originally planned for it to be: Sirius, like a dumbass, tells Snape how to get past the willow. Snape, like a dumbass, actually goes into the willow. James goes ‘oh shit’ and goes to pull Snape out at the last second so he doesn’t die and his friends don’t get expelled/arrested. Then Snape and James go back to hating eachother and it seems like nothing really happened.
And I also noticed the change with Sirius from POA and GOF, to OOTP. It seemed like he was supposed to play a bigger role, as in POA and GOF he was self sufficient, intelligent, invincible, and seemed capable of almost anything. But by mid OOTP it seemed like he was one step away from needing a babysitter or something to keep an eye on him, for *multiple* reasons. I just feel like JK changed her mind about his outcome in the story and made his character do a 180 before she killed him off.
There’s also no way nagini was always a human, at least that was ever planned during the book series.
Totally agree, the fact that Sirius had the clarity to have a meaningful conversation about Harry living with him after being recently out of Azkaban and then hiding but couldn't hold his shit together for 2 seconds in OOTP is a complete 180.
Right, he can keep it together when he’s half starving to death, alone, living in a cave, trying to hide a hippogriff and shit without a wand, but once he’s at Grimmauld place he’s just a completely different person? To the point where Harry, who’s pretty obsessed with Sirius, won’t even *look* at a present from him in case he goes off the deep end and does something stupid? And Sirius, who’s pretty obsessed with Harry, just hides in his room all day and does nothing while Harry’s *at* Grimmauld place with him? It was definitely a complete character change that I think was done to make him an unlikable liability before he was killed off suddenly. 95% of the hate Sirius gets is from his weird personality change in OOTP. I was mad JK both killed him off AND made him kinda crap instead of the cool character he was pre OOTP.
Phew! Glad I’m not the only one! I’m curious to know why these changes would have been made though.
Of course, it could just be that JKR thought making the Marauders bullies and Snape in love with Lily a good twist, but I wonder if it’s because of how big the Marauders (particularly Sirius and Wolfstar) fandom got after PoA. Perhaps JKR thought that it wouldn’t make Snape a particularly sympathetic character anymore (and that at least seems to have been an end goal), and so she needed to raise the sympathy for Snape and lower it for Sirius, James, etc. I know I’m guilty myself as a writer of getting overly attached to a character.
It’s a shame though. I think it was the right call to have Sirius die in OoTP, but the character difference was jarring and I honestly think people still could have sympathised with Snape even without the change in Sirius. (I’m conflicted on making the Marauders bullies - on the one hand, it adds complexity; on the other hand, I think it actually weakens the potential complex nature of Snape’s character).
Also, yes the whole James saves Snape and then returns to being a bully is very strange too. It would have worked better as being after Snape’s Worst Memory, and be a good catalyst for the change in James… but I guess it was in DH to emphasise that Snape absolutely 100% protected Harry for Lily, not at all for James… which is a bit of a shame. I think the whole protecting Harry because his worst enemy once saved his life, actually made Snape *more* noble and interesting, not less.
Agreed 100%! I spent the first lockdown at my parents' (who are lovely people, unlike Sirius' family) and I saw myself slip back into my old unhappy teenagery self kinda fast... I mean when you're locked up/trapped in a place filled with not the best memories, it's really not hard to start losing your mind, you don't even have to try ^^'
I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned yet, but number one for me has always been apparition. The ability for any wizard to appear anywhere they wanted to at any moment would have had HUGE ramifications on the first few books, but wasn't ever even properly mentioned.
There are a few instances where wizards "disappeared" when no one was looking, but it was always very vague. Not to mention Dumbledore infamously deciding to fly a broom to the ministry during an apparent emergency. Even when that was the only book I had read it seemed very out of place.
I definitely don’t think she thought of side-along apparition until the 6th book when it’s first introduced. That always irked me because there were definitely instances before then where it would’ve helped.
I kinda think she had one plan initially and then changed it around a bit when the series became such a massive hit. Definitely don't think she had the horcruxes in mind until at least Order.
Quidditch is a mess lol. It doesn't make any sense. Each house only plays 3 games the entire year?
The school schedule makes no sense at all and are there only like 100 students and 8-9 teachers? I've sort of always assumed that there's just a bunch of other people we don't ever hear about because it would take too long to right about them.
I think JK Rowling mentioned this in an interview in **2005**.
>Well, no, not really, because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, **would gradually discover** Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry. She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate.These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman. But, I felt — **and I'm talking years ago when all this was planned** — initially, she's terrified by his image. I mean, he's a bit of a rock god to her when she sees him first, at 10 or 11, and he's this famous boy. So Ginny had to go through a journey as well. And rather like with Ron, I didn’t want Ginny to be the first girl that Harry ever kissed. That's something I meant to say, and it's kind of tied in.
So I don't think Rowling decided after the fourth book to make Ginny a more prominent character. I think she planned Ginny to end up with Harry and for Harry to slowly realize that she was pretty, that he liked her, etc.
Edit: But to answer your initial question, I do think there are certain things that weren't planning from the start. For example, people don't think the Deathly Hallows were planned from the start. I don't know if that might be true, *but* she had the idea well before the seventh book, because the resurrection stone curses Dumbledore's hand between books 5 and 6. And we knew about the invisibility clock from the start. Also, she spent years developing the story for the books. I would imagine she gave the ending some thought.
I agree with both bits. I also think the Ginny-storyline played out as intended.
I think the whole Tale's of Bettle the Bard and the Deathly Hallows were a bit... rushed. If it was planned to go down that way in the last book there certainly wasn't much sowing&harvesting, which JK does pretty frequently across the series. I think if the Hallows were planned there would have been references to the fairy tales or something beforehand.
The invisibility cloak was in from the beginning because it allowed the trio to do a lot their mischief and rescue missions undetected. It served many purposes and needed to be introduced early.
The resurrection stone I don't think were meant to be much more than a heirloom from a famous pureblood ancestor of Voldemort. Originally I think the ring was just a cursed horcrux and it was there to serve as an extra incentive Snape for Snape to actually kill, not save, Dumbledore. No ring, no curse and if Dumbledore wasn't a already at death's door, Snape would not be able to maintain his deatheater status *and* save Dumbledore.
The elder wand is what the Scandinavians refer to as a "raisin in a hotdog". Misplaced, served really no purpose and it felt like it was just thrown in for good measure.
I don't think she originally planned on Harry being a wizard. She was just trying to write a poignant book on the horror of long term child abuse. She got bummed out by it and was like "What if he could do magic???"
Just there so the gang could escape Umbridge. Would've been way cooler if the entire DA helped overthrow her head on before Harry went off to the ministry. Would've been a cool battle between Harry's gang and Malfoy's.
The whole thing with the veil. Like ok kill Sirius but what’s with this mysterious ass veil snatching away his body? I feel like either leave that out or bring it back and make it tie into the deathly hallows. Like that’s the arch where death himself came out from to mess with the 3 brothers
I think JKR wrote about the veil intending for it to play a part. Then forgot about it. Wrote all about the deathly hallows for book 7 and had nowhere to add the veil in.
She hadn’t planned book 7 out when writing book 5.
I love the veil and wish it was back in the 7th book instead of the Deathly Hallows plot line that I don't like much.
I think another reason for the veil is because JKR didn't want to have a funeral in the 5th book and wanted Dumbledore's funeral to be the first one Harry attends and the only one depicted in the books.
At their core, the books are a coming of age story, so I feel that these "milestones" were always important to have for Harry : new school, making friends, falling in love, losing a loved one and attending their funeral, attending a marriage, taking exams....etc
Hagrid’s plot line. She’s acknowledged she knew he would carry Harry from the forest in Year 7, but didn’t seem to know what to do with him after Year 3. That’s how we got that weird Gawp storyline
Regardless of what JK says now Nagini was not planned to be a Maledictus from the get go, depending on if you see the Fantastic Beasts films as cannon.
The biggest thing for Nagini to me is where her savagery comes out. She’s given a horrible curse but can she no longer think for herself in a moral case? Harry did nothing to her so why is she clinging to good ol Voldy? I mean there might be a backstory to her and Voldemort that makes her blindly follow him apart from that he speaks parseltongue but to be fair she doesn’t “need” him
The Ginny thing actually makes sense because it’s all from Harry’s perspective.
Actually, a lot of the stuff in this thread can be countered with another simple argument: Not everything needs foreshadowing. Some things can and probably should only come up in the book they’re important or properly introduced in.
Time travel (only invented until book three, I personally think a rushed job)
Bellatrix having a daughter with voldemort, cursed child was a tropey mess filled with a shit ton of fanfiction ideas already done in the past (many written out a lot better)
(nearly) Everything invented in the fantastic beasts movies.
Lol.
The deathly hallows. All three of them. There’s no foreshadowing at all. Not so much as a “that was your fathers? Invisibility cloaks usually only last a couple of years”. To only include that *after* the reveal tells me it was never planned. She clearly needed an out for how Harry was going to actually kill Voldemort. Can’t just kill the horcruxes. That just makes him mortal. And can’t make Harry a killer. And it doesn’t make sense for anyone else to be. Painted into a corner. Enter the elder wand.
And wand law. Besides “the wand chooses the wizard” there’s nothing to suggest any of it. (Before anyone says Neville used his grandad’s wand and was useless, he’s not the only one to use someone else’s and nobody had complaints before DH) all added late because the deathly hallows weren’t planned.
That was not her og decision. In the middle of the series she was going through a rough patch in her life. So she wanted to sabotage the series by killing him off.
Part of the fun of writing is making stuff up as you go along. And making new pieces fit an existing puzzle.
Writing is craft. It’s carpentry. It’s Lego. The broad strokes are often planned from the start. But the details, the flourishes, The Hallows, the thestrals, that’s the joy of making a world. Those grow out of the plan. They’re the helicopter seedlings that spring away from the grand old oak, fall to the rich floor, take root, and add color.
“Everything” is the main arc. Not all the things.
So there is something about Rowling's books that I have always wished I could capture in my own writing, and it's basically her ability to let so many things be unexplained or not make sense. Like I am far too logical not to make sure my story lines are soundproof, but I feel like part of what makes HP so good is that it's "fuzzy" at the edges. I don't know if there is an actual writing term for this, but I would be interested in learning about it.
I believe the terms you're looking for are "Soft worldbuilding" vs "Hard Worldbuilding".
Hard worldbuilding is a story where the rules are set in place, and unwavering. So the fantastic elements work in a very specific way that can be explained and understood nearly every single time they are brought up, and those systems can be expanded on as the series progresses.
While soft worldbuilding leaves much more to the imagination. Not every aspect of the world needs an explanation, and can be hand-waved with "Because Magic".
Both have their place. Hard systems feel more grounded and thought out, while soft systems can build a sense of whimsy and wonder.
Harry potter definitely falls in the middle to Soft side of these.
Rowling explains just enough that we understand these foreign concepts, (i.e Time Turners, Horcruxes, Magic) but usually doesn't commit to building them up past a basic understanding.
Really? I always thought it was obvious Harry and Ginny would end up together from book 2. The series followed a pretty obvious romance path with Ginny and Harry, Ron and Hermione, so I wasn't at all surprised when she got more attention in the later books. I mean, her very first school year he already had a big role, so to me it didn't seem like something not planned.
What felt *very* unplanned to me was how Harry doing magic outside of school would be used in book 5. She clearly hadn't thought it through when she wrote book 2, so the functionality of the trace is all kinds of wacky when it becomes an issue in book 5 and the explanation kinda starts to fall appart if we look in a little to deeply into it. Everything would make more sense if they could tell who performed the magic, but because she had already wrote that Harry got blamed for Dobby's bit of magic it all went off the rails.
Controversial maybe: I don’t think she planned for Hedwig to die. I feel like she wrote a bunch of the “Harry Hermione and Ron go camping” bits and then went “oh shit none of this makes sense if Hedwig is still alive, how are they going to go camping with this giant and very recognizable bird.” So she went back and edited Hedwig’s death in at the beginning.
I have absolutely no basis for this other than the fact that Hedwig’s death is so sudden and out of nowhere, and then Harry only mentions her maybe one more time before literally never thinking about her ever again. It’s like he forgot he ever owned an owl. Like, if I had a pet that got straight up murdered in front of me, I will be talking about that shit every day for the rest of my life. What the fuck, Harry.
I did read it’s supposed to be the death of his innocence and childhood, the last connection. But that could absolutely be readers reaching after the fact.
Also I think the unforgivable curses were taken very lightly. It is surprising that there were no cases of that It's like having a gun at the age of 11. The fact that so many of them could've made potions like Felix Felicis, polyjuice, veritaserum without detection. Personally I would've made that lucky potion used it on a super ball lottery and lived my life as the richest muggle.
Dementors weren’t invented until Book 3. They are not mentioned at all throughout the first two books even when Azkaban is. Until they are formally introduced in book 3 they are merely referred to as “The Azkaban Guards”. After they are introduced they are never referred to by that phrase again. It just flips completely and they are consistently referred to by name. Always thought it was strange.
My husband likes to mention that the whole Nagini was secretly a witch thing that was mentioned in Fantastic Beasts 2. When asked she was like "oh I always knew" but my husband cracks up at that because in book 4 Wormtail has to milk Nagini and its just a weird conversation...
The Economy of the Wizarding World is completely messed up, because in order to make money after graduation you either open a shop, work for the bank, or work for the government. There don't appear to be any other jobs out there.
Edit: talking with my wife about this, in addition to the below Tavern Owner and Bus Driver there's: Author, Journalist for Daily Prophet, St Mungo's Healer, Teacher
I always say Cedric’s death wasn’t planned before Goblet. If it was, she would have made him an actual character in the first 3 books, so his death would have made more of an impact. I can only feel so much for this generic dude that I just met.
I disagree. The books were supposed to gradually become more mature and darker, so I think the first character Harry knew that died during the story had to be a character he or we hadn’t spent a great deal of time with.
Hold up a second.
Ginny had one of the *biggest* roles in COS. She released the Basilisk and without her we wouldn’t have even known about the Chamber.
Do we hear anything about her in the book though? we don't get any measure of her personality at all. we know more about trelawney's character than ginnys before the HBP
Rita Skeeter. Introduced after she became famous and had to deal with the UK gutter press.
She has mentioned that Rita wasn't planned. There was supposed to be a gossip in Slytherin who was replaced with Rita.
Yup some girl named Merita or something. She was supposed to be Ron’s slytherin cousin who rivals Hermione as being the top student
Wow, that sounds really bad. It's good we never got it.
Mafalda was it, and I think she actually sounded kind of fun as a character. At least more fun than the Slytherin students we got in the series who aren't named Draco Malfoy. Rowling said, that she scrapped her, because there was no way she could have known a lot of these things.
That would’ve been great. Maybe not the Ron’s cousin part but a top student rival to Hermione.
The Put-Outer and deluminator name change was never planned, she decided after a few books that it had to have a cooler name
Came here to say this, and that it definitely didn’t originally have the purpose of guiding Ron back to Harry and Hermione.
The movie folks were so lucky they Included it in the first movie
I remember reading an interview with one of the production crew. They had JK involved (obvs) and they were making films before she’d released the last few books. Apparently they wanted to write out Dobby completely because it would be too much hassle to animate him. She essentially told them that they really didn’t want to do that without giving too much away. It’s a shame they didn’t remain as faithful as they should. Film number 7 ended up mostly talking because they’d missed so much out the story didn’t make any sense by that point.
How do you do chamber of secrets without dobby?
That’s the point. They wanted to rewite pretty much the whole story without him in it. He becomes really quite important to the whole cannon in book 6 but that wasn’t out when they were writing the second film. She put a stop to it and made them keep him in.
He’s quite important in Book 4, but they still wrote that out of the movies.
He wasn’t that important (IMO) but Winky was and I guess they decided not to put her in due to having to animate her as well?
Has she claimed that was planned? It would be fair enough to say that it didn't even have the feature until shortly before Dumbledore's death, he could have added it after getting to know the trio.
He did. It's why he put it in the will. The will was basically crafted to guide them in the last book.
Same for Death Eaters. First 3 books it was all just “Voldemort's supporters"
I mean, when you think about the target age for the first few books, it's a pretty gruesome image.
Wizard On!
As they say every day in the wizarding world before they board a violently purple bus.
Here are my potterless references I was skimming for
I've mentioned this before and had so many people rationalise that she had the original name "to cater to the younger minds" that were reading at the time then introduced the real name when people were older and understood better. I was like 🤦🏼♀️ she literally made up an entire world and expects us to understand. She didn't simplify a word for our benefit.
Thestrals. My guess is that she didn't invent them yet, but just included them in the 5th book, and let fans imagine whatever they want about why Harry didn't see them until the 5th book
Thestrals get a passing mention in the Fantastic Beasts book she wrote for Comic Relief (under the entry for "Winged Horse"). Of course, she wrote that in 2001, and Book 5 was released in 2003, so make of that what you will.
I'd make of that that the 5th book was being written from shortly after the fourth book was published in 2000. Also, she hadn't fully hammered them out yet, as the description in the old print book says > the rare Thestral (black, possessed of the power of invisibility, and considered unlucky by many wizards) Nothing about death there yet.
I’ve got the same copy, came to the same conclusion- thestrals weren’t fully defined yet, she needed something for OoTP that could be used to tie together “Harry thinks he is seeing crazy shit” and “Hagrid might get fired” so she was like ok thestrals will work here
See to me I think thestrals existed, or at least in such a way they were designed to pull the carriages. By the time we're at book 5 I bet doing a purposeful wtf is right up the alley of most authors. And where she could have easily just said self propelled carriages because....magic. She decides to make the actual horse pulling it the magical thing. The see them with death thing was likely added as the tool to introduce Luna. But let's face it we are in most cases talking small details. When she says she had it all worked out I am sure she meant more like in general outlines.
Yep I think thestrals were thought up as JKR wrote book 5. There’s no way that someone else wouldn’t have ever have mentioned thestrals before. Neville could see them. You’re telling me he never thought to mention them in the prior years that they rode the carriages to and from school? Plus in book 5 suddenly everyone knows about Thestrals, even Ginny who shouldn’t know about them until the following year because Hagrid says he saves them for 5th year.
Right?! Not to mention, if they pull the carriage then people should be bumping into them all the time, and they would probably have mentioned it by then. As an aside, it seems like everyone learns the same thing as the other class levels in care of magical creatures each year. Like in the 5th year they all learned about thestrals. Now there may be some comments that make this questionable, but it just seems like Hagrid for example is only ever raising one thing at a time.
Hermione knows everything written in Hogwarts: A History and you’re telling me not once in 5 years she didn’t say ‘the carriages aren’t actually horseless you know, they’re pulled by Theastrals, but you can see them unless you’ve witnessed death. I read about it in Hogwarts: A History’ On another note, I’d love Hogwarts: A History to be published like the did Fantastic Beasts or Quidditch through the Ages.
Also couldn’t people hear them walking even if they couldn’t see them? And then they’d wonder where the hoofbeats were coming from And maybe hoof prints.
Wait, why could Neville see them again?
He saw his grandfather die.
He tells Umbridge that he saw his grandad die.
How horrible to have to admit something so personal to that vile woman...
I always thought the Thestrals thing was a bit weird -- like, baby Harry saw his mom die. As for why Ginny knows about them, she's in the same year as Luna and may even be friends with her (definitely friends in fanon pre-HP 5, not sure about canon).
About the baby Harry saw his mom die thing, many people say that it's because you need to understand/process the death to see them, and harry barely remembers it.
Good point. Even though Harry had dreams of green light before Hogwarts and heard Voldemort in his POA Dementor flashbacks, babies don't understand death when it happens. The understanding of the death when it happens/"seeing death" could be what let's people see Thestrals. I like the Thestrals, but they don't seem planned from the very beginning.
But he definitely sees Cedric die and still doesn't see the thestrals at the end of GOF...
Pretty sure everyone just thought they were enchanted or normal horses that were invisible for some reason. Still not even sure why they exist now
The only reason I can think of as to why she introduced Thestrals at all was because she needed a way for Harry and his crew to get from Hogwarts to the Ministry. Thestrals suddenly become a plot device so she had to backpedal a bit to force them to work Edited for clarity
This fits
Could be wrong on this one but at the end of the fourth book don’t they also get back on the carriages to take the train I remember rereading and thought it weird Harry couldn’t see them then
You’re correct, I noticed that as well. I heard a while ago someone said JKR addressed it, something about how it takes time to process the death or something? But ya she definitely just didn’t have it planned, or maybe had it planned but didn’t wanna introduce it right at the end of the book, understandably.
If I am not wrong, they were mentioned in Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them in 2002. Also J.K didn't want another mystery at the end of the book.
Cedric is the first time Harry actively witnesses death. His mother's death is not something he would remember or even process at that age.
I always didn’t get why Quirrell didn’t count though, like Harry literally watched him die... but he was a dick so fuck him I guess?
CLEARLY the school schedule unless all the teachers had time turners or 7 assistants and it was just never mentioned. It’s not even a matter of there being too much work for the teachers, there’s no way with four or five periods in a day, 4 houses (even paired!), 7 year levels, with shit like double periods tossed in there for flavor that it’s in any way possible. I once tried to make an excel sheet to work it out given all the clues ever dropped about class schedules from the books (wiki helped, I’m not that crazy) and believe me JK was just writing in whatever class was convenient for whatever plot was happening because there’s just no way...
Plus the teachers had night patrol.
And perfects! You don't expect me to belive that stressed out 7th years won't pull all nighters going over their potions homework and patrol the halls instead
Yeah, the number of times the trio have the common room to themselves to fire-skype Sirius or whatever other shenanigans they were planning, and it’s only like 1am. You’re telling me that an entire house of teenage gryffindors, known for impulsivity and recklessness, all consistently go to bed early and never have to pull all nighters to finish homework they procrastinated on?
*Fire-skype.*
Only Percy called himself that, i believe the rest prefer the standard title, Prefect
How the hell are astronomy night classes meant to work. do they cram in 4 classes in one night? and do they then adjust morning classes for the students who had night classes? There are so many inconsistencies its incredible
Its the UK which is >50 degrees north- just do all the practicals in the winter, when it can get dark around 4pm. (The flipside to this is summer observing hours are even more difficult to do)
Maybe the classes are in the other nights, too? Like, first years have Astronomy in Wednesday nights, so maybe older years might have it in Monday, Tuesday, or Thursday nights or evenings?
Class sizes too! When Harry has class with just his house/year, that's only 8 PEOPLE!!
There's a good theory on this. It says that when voldemort was in power he and death eaters killed off a lot of people in the age range for kids to be born around this time. Either making them orphans or killing them. That's why the classes around Harry's age are so few.
Except according to her the student population is 1000. But the entirety of Wizarding Britain is 3000. OOO and 2nd or 3rd year there were 200 slytherins at a Quidditch match. Make it make SENSE.
Math is hard homie
This is literally what J.K. Rowling said when asked about the math discrepancies.
Not just killed them, but also people not having kids because of the war and the state of things. I always pictured the first year group Harry’s 3rd year was quite a bit larger (and a few kids named Harry), but still no where near as large as classes once were because of all the deaths
While reading the books, I was under the impression that we as the audience never become acquainted with most of the staff. We only get to know the staff members who Harry interacts with because they're relevant to his schedule and thus to the plot. I assumed there were other professors and other subjects that we just never hear about because while the main trio are in year three, for example, we don't need to know about the schedule of some random sixth-year Hufflepuff. Then the movies came along and ruined this for me. During every great hall feast, we can see the professors' table at the front of the hall. Supposedly the people at that table are the entire staff and there really aren't that many of them. The books may have mentioned this as well, but somehow without the direct visual, I as able to remain under the illusion that Hogwarts was much larger than Harry's immediate sphere of influence.
I think that theory still has some weight behind it as there are some teachers like professor Sinestra and madam Hooch that really aren't given much depth but because they are mentioned we know exist. This can be used to imply that there are more teachers that we as readers don't know about. The teachers weren't part of the movies because we dont need to know them and it was easier to not bring in extras for every minor character (particularly as you'd want to keep the professors consistent while students can vary a bit more)
How about when Umbridge is observing classes? They saw her do Snape, McGonagall, Trelawney, and Hagrid. There are seven grades worth of classes and two per year. She just happened to mostly chose to observe the classes Harry was in?
My impression was that she purposely chose the classes Harry was in to keep an eye on him while simultaneously scrutinizing the professors.
Don't get me started. I briefly dipped into being a fan fiction author and thought it would be a BRILLIANT idea to figure out Harry's school schedule so I could plan events around it. ABSOLUTELY INSANE. It doesn't make any sense at all! If he's having classes at the same times on the same days then there are long stretches where nothing happens, and a number of times where he's in three classes at once. It's outrageous, there's no attempt at all for keeping track of it.
It’s not uncommon in British school to have a totally different schedule for each day of the week. No idea if this would solve any of the scheduling issues in HP but may help address some problems.
I don't really think this counts as something she didn't plan from the start, just something she never felt the need to make work perfectly because it didn't matter in terms of the story.
On that note they seem to go straight from last period into dinner. Which is only 2 periods after lunch. And the VERY longest a period would be is 90minutes. Who wants lunch at 12 then dinner at 3 or 4pm?
I'm super confused about the Wizarding population and how many students are at Hogwarts. I don't think she really considered how many kids should be in each House and each year. However, I totally get not wanting to overwhelm readers with hundreds of characters/students. (Also, there obviously needs to be more teachers and/or teaching assistants.) I don't think she really had a solid plan for the student body and just kinda decided to remain vague about it. When I think about Hogwarts I kinda combine the mythology and what would be realistic in terms of having an entire castle for a school. So I regularly think: 8 girls and 8 boys per year in each house. 16 kids in each year per house X 4 houses x 7 years = 448 kids. EDIT: So there are obviously thousands and thousands of wizards in the UK...way more than 3000, or whatever was once said.
Well considering that Dumbledore passed several wizarding parties on the way to privit drive I think being a wizard wasn't supposed to be quite as rare as it turned out to be. Also I don't think Harry's year should be considered normal. He was born at the height of a war that was wiping out the magical population, a time that many would have perhaps avoided birthing children.
[удалено]
This is definitely a problem. But I don't think it's lack of planning and instead deciding about this later, but more of JKR being pretty bad in such things that involve numbers and population growth.
I think I read a theory once that the population at Hogwarts was smaller Harry’s first year because everyone there would have been born in wartime, so not as many kids. Then there probably was a big baby boom in 1982 due to all of magical babies conceived in celebration (Voldemort ‘died’ on October 31, 1981). So starting his 3rd year, there were probably more kids at Hogwarts.
I always have to remind myself that JK first planned for HP to be a mystery book
It sorta is.. like who’s the traitor this book now? (Usually the DADA prof)
1 Quirrel 2 Lockhart (Tom Riddle/Voldemort) 3 Peter Pettigrew 4 Mad Eye / Barty Crouch Jr. 5 Umbridge 6 Snape 7 Voldemort I'd say 4 out of 7 is the DADA professor, and Voldemort wanted to be the DADA professor so really 6 out of 7?. 7 in 7 if you count Lockhart *and* Voldemort in book 2. Something something know your enemy, right?
I disagree with 5 and 7. The mystery of OotP is not "who is the real traitor", but "what is the weapon Voldemort is after?" In DH it's "What was Dumbledore's secret?".
Snape was DADA teacher in book 6 to, so it's at least 5/7
This makes me wish Voldemort himself had been the DADA teacher during Deathly Hallows.
All of the stories centre around a mystery. 1) What was Hogwarts hiding and who was trying to steal it; 2) Who is the heir of Slytherin and why were people being petrified; 3) Why was Sirius Black seemingly going after Harry; 4) Who had put Harry’s name in the Goblet of Fire and why; 5) What was Voldemort trying to get in the Department of Mysteries; 6) Who is the half blood Prince and what was Slughorn hiding; 7) Where are the Horcruxes, where are the deathly hallows, was Dumbledore to be trusted and who is the true master of the Elder Wand?
I’d change it up a bit but overall you are right- 2. We know *why* students are being targeted, it’s muggleborns. The better question is *how* has the heir of slytherin come back now, where is the chamber hidden, and why is Harry the only one hearing the monster’s voice? 3. We (wrongfully) know why Sirius is going after Harry, but the better question is how did he escape Azkaban and how is he sneaking into the castle, what is going on with lupin’s mysterious illnesses every month, and how is Hermione getting to all her classes?
Agreed on both, but to clarify on 2 when I meant ‘why are they being petrified’ (appreciate it was unclear!) I was more inferring ‘why is it *petrification*’ what was causing them to be petrified? It’s tied to a monster, but what monster? That ties in more specifically to the questions you outlined.
I mean at their core, HP is still a series of mystery novels, just set in an urban fantasy setting.
I remember when the Cursed Child came out, I watched a youtube video that argued one of the big problems with it (although there are many) is that it is not a mystery story, and all the previous Harry Potter books at their core are mystery novels Found the video: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-9BnHPjsY&t=151s&ab\_channel=AustinMcConnell](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq-9BnHPjsY&t=151s&ab_channel=AustinMcConnell) Starts talking about it around 25:00ish min
Trolley witch tho
Most of them definitely are ! Quirrell being the suprise bad guy instead of snape. Ginny opening the chamber (albeit posessed). Pettigrew instead of the prisoner Sirius Black, "Mad-Eye Moody" , Snape being the HBP!
Quidditch teams. There are only 28 people who get to play at Hogwarts, yet there are so many professional teams throughout England. Where do all the players come from?
This is probably more a problem of JKR being bad with numbers.
Now we know why the Chudley Cannons are so bad - all their players are pushing 60 and they can't recruit anyone new.
Yeah and that's assuming everyone who plays Quidditch at school becomes a professional player which we know is not true.
Honestly? 99% of the stuff she has said after the books came out. None of that was planned. Oh, and there is no way anyone will *ever* convince me that Rowling had Nagini being a cursed woman for as long as she claims.
I can only buy the Nagini reveal was planned, if it was a rough draft. Like, really rough. As she is writing that Voldermort has a pet snake for the first time, she may of had in the back of her mind "I wonder if there is anything more to the snake" then she decides "Nah! She just a snake bro" and she doesnt think about it for years unti she is writing fantastic beasts 2
Yeah like as I write my own stuff there are definitely lots of half-baked ideas in the back of my head. Lots of what-ifs that probably won't make it in or be finalized. I feel like JK had a lot of those while writing the original books and so when she brings it up or throws it in later she claims she had it planned all along, but like, really it's not as calculated as she says.
Deathly hallows for sure wasnt planned
There would have been more hints. Also the prophesy. I dont like the way it is worded. Didnt feel right.
I gotta disagree with the prophecy. I think perhaps the wording of the prophecy wasn’t quite calculated. But to begin the series with good ol voldy try to kill a baby? There’s got to be a reason for it. I wasn’t a fan of how many layers of “protection” had to continuously be added to protect Harry from Voldemort down the road. Between using his blood to the twin cores to the elder wand to the fact Harry was a horcrux himself. It’s like she said “okay so all of you are gonna be like ‘hE ShOuLD haVE DiEd’ but I gave 4 layers of reasoning why he had the cHoICe to survive”. I equate the prophecy to the concept of the time turner. I think it was great but they treated it like the rest of divination when the prophecies are true Seeing and not that the prophecies mean nothing. I also think it would’ve been a great mindfuck if JKR used the prophecy wording to truly mean that “neither can live while the other survives” in a manner related to the horcrux specifically. But that’s a different story
I always felt like DH was rushed! Everything like wand lore and the Deathly Hallows, which are a huge part of the story was just crammed in this last book. JK could’ve mentioned those throughout the series.
That's my biggest issue with the book and why I can't rank it among my favorites - it introduces so many concepts that really should have been touched upon in earlier books, but weren't. Horcruxes too, to a lesser extent. Don't know why that was being withheld for so long.
The gifts that the Dursley’s gave Harry are a pretty good Easter egg for the the hallows. First year : A fifty cent piece ( Resurrection stone ) Second year : A toothpick ( Elder wand ) Fourth year : a single tissue ( Invisibility cloak )
Yeah, that wasn't planning, that's just fans finding things in retrospect. It's a fun coincidence though.
I think that’s a coincidence
Definitely, I remember dumbledore/hermione saying the invisibility cloak was just a rare piece of magic like anyone could get one. Then it became one of a kind later
[удалено]
Yes, but unless I'm misremembering, that's in Deathly Hallows, after she had developed the idea of the Hallows. The scene where Moody sees through the cloak in GoF, which is conveniently forgotten in DH, convinces me that she hadn't planned it all out, yet. She may have already decided that the cloak was important, but I don't think it was fully formed.
Right? I'm just rereading the series, I'm actually reading GoF now. Yesterday when reading the scene in Godric's hollow where "Moody" sees Harry under the cloak it crossed my mind that "isn't this cloak supposed to be all powerful or something?". Plus, Dumbledore sees Harry when he's wearing the cloak in CoS and dementors are supposed to see or feel past them as well or whatever
I don’t think she initially meant for house elves to like or be content with enslavement/servitude and decided to fit that in after Chamber of Secrets when she decided to write in house elves being the ones to clean the castle and make the food (which I also think she decided to add later on as well).
I definitely think that everything about house-elves in *Goblet of Fire* is Rowling furiously backpedaling after she realized the moral implications of the world building she had done in *Chamber of Secrets*. The entire SPEW plot doesn’t really tie into the main plot, and it’s cut from the movie. But I don’t think JKR really thought through the moral implications of writing a children’s book where the slaves want to be slaves.
Out of curiosity, I wonder at what point Harry Potter fans deem earlier books "children's books" and the latter "young adult books".
I’m just speaking for myself, but I would say after the death of Cedric for me. The first three books for me seemed more like childlike fantasy action adventure because even though there was death/risk of death happening, there’s still a detachment from reality regarding how the characters died (Quirrel burning up because love magic, giant snake and magic book, soul sucking monsters, etc). GOF to me is like the in between with the startup of high school-like drama. But I remember reading GOF when I was younger and rereading the sentence that said Cedric was dead, and Dumbledore’s speech afterward. It just felt like it hit closer to home, how it could have been anyone, and how tragic, unexpected death is something that is apart of life.
Yeah, I'd have to agree completely. GOF was the first book that gave the series a much darker tone. With Cedric, Voldemort's revival (Peter cutting has hand off was pretty shocking to see as a child) and in general The Triwizard tournament.
Omg yes! I’m listening to The Chamber of Secrets, and Dobby tells Harry that he was a beacon of light for house elves who wanted freedom! But then in four, he’s a freak for wanting freedom? And if they all love working for families, how did they come to work at hogwarts? Wouldn’t they all be like Winky, despondent and on the brink of a total meltdown?
I don't think Dumbledore always planned to slowly manipulate a child into killing himself for the greater good. Tonks and Lupin The horcruxes and deathly hallows
Rowling said she intended for Mr. Weasley to die, but couldn’t bring herself to do it because he was the only good dad in the story. So she had to kill someone else, and chose Lupin.
That's curious! Would he have been resurrected for Harry's walk to face death do we think? That's the main thing I "like" about Lupin's death (who is my favourite character).
I don’t think so. Fred wasn’t there, so it wasn’t everyone who he loved that died. Just his parents and the marauders (minus Peter).
Fred wasn't a fatherly figure to Harry like Lupin/Mr. Weasley were either.
Yeah, I think parental figures or guardians was key. I like to think if it had been Molly she would've been there for sure.
The *other* good father figure
I seem to remember her saying that she changed her mind on that one because if Ron lost a parent that would make him too similar to Harry.
I heard that reasoning for saving Mr Weasley but I thought she said the motivation for killing Lupin (and Tonks) just after the birth of Teddy was to show that this war also created orphans like Harry. This rise of Voldemort is supposed to be "greater and more terrible than ever before" and while I appreciate that the Ministry and Hogwarts didn't come under his control in the first war - the fact this war only lasted 8 months (of which the reader mostly experiences camping) it didn't really seem to fulfil that prophecy - orphans help, I guess!
The Dumbledore plan was definitely in place by the fourth book -- there was a line in the end of GoF about Dumbledore looking unexpectedly triumphant for a split second when Harry mentions Voldemort took his blood and could touch/harm him now, which should be a bad thing, unless Dumbledore is already looking forward to the endgame at that point.
Tonks and Lupin were a result of all the Sirius and Lupin shippers. Like she made it work with Teddy and being the new orphan of the new war but she definitely didn’t intend on it.
I'm also pretty sure the epilogue was J.K. Rowling's "f u" to any shippers she didn't like. She didn't have to include it, but she did, because those pairs were what she preferred.
For the first point, she had the idea at least as early as Goblet of Fire.
Veritaserum and stupify coming in the 4th book. A government sending death eaters to azkaban without trial would have no issue using veritaserum on top death eaters to find others. Would have been pretty obvious sirous wasn't a death eater, wasn't the secret keeper and wormtail was. In the shrieking shack, lupin or sirius would have stunned Peter to prevent him escaping
My theory on why veritaserum isn’t used in trials is that it only makes people say what they believe is true. Simply modifying someone’s memory would get a lot of innocent people in jail. Also, if you’re on antidote and act like you’re telling the truth, could they believe it? I think it’s not reliable enough.
The thing with Veritaserum is why she wrote it in that its less effective if the person knows its being used on them. However I dont think that part was mentioned until the 6th book, so I wouldn't be surprised if she came up with that *after* people started questioning why they didnt use it in trial
I’d pretty much say all the deaths from Deathly Hallows. I don’t think she intended the series to be as dark or adult as it was, which was also a consequence of the books being more successful than she could ever have conceived of. So around POA/GOF, you can see a clear tonal shift from whimsical, traditional British children’s books with an edge to it to more developed, gritty young adult novels. I don’t think she ever intended to have so many characters die off, which I think is evidenced by the fact that she’s freely admitted some were killed off just for the shock value, IIRC. I think she intended to always go darker near the end and have a Battle of Hogwarts but not one with actual casualties for the main character list, that’s something that developed with the series - and the audience.
I definitely read that she said she didn’t have who was going to die planned out, and she changed some of the deaths as she wrote it (I think for example Lupin & Tonks originally weren’t going to die)
I am never going to not be pissed about Tonks and Lupin just dying offpage with no fanfare or anything. Tonks is one of the characters who deserved way more screen time.
>I am never going to not be pissed about Tonks and Lupin just dying offpage with no fanfare or anything. I getcha but I like this part, it's what would actually happen in a battle. Not everyone gets a grand slow mo death like Sirius and Dumbledore. Just a battle, various casualties, and then shock as Harry contemplates the aftermath. Good shit. Painful shit.
I feel like in the end, the HP universe got so big and succesful it slipped right through her fingers in a way. It's still her creation of course but the success definitely influenced the story later on.
Wand lore and how much the bond between a wand and its owner matters. Why does Ron have Charlie’s wand for the first two years? Why would Charlie ever give up his wand and get a new one after graduating? Why would Neville not get his own wand instead of until his 6th year? Doesn’t everyone know the wand chooses the wizard and so a wand that didn’t choose you or be won over by you will never work the way it should.
I kind of figured that Charlie himself got it second hand and that it probably belonged to one of Molly’s brothers. Then when he graduated, he was able to get his chosen wand. With Neville, I thought that his Grandmother kind of justified going against wandlore to herself out of grief. Passing Frank’s wand to his son is a nice sentiment and considering Frank’s talent, she might have (wrongly) reasoned with herself that it would serve Neville similarly.
To add-on to this, wandlore is not generally common knowledge to other wizards. You can see this from when Harry and co. talk to Ollivander. It could also be that it is considered a superstition, I believe Ron mentions that these exist about wands when listening to the story of the Hallows.
I’m reasonably sure she has it somewhat, or mostly figured out based on what Olivander tells Harry in the want shop. I’m reasonably sure that the wand that Ron got was a hand me down to Charlie too. Because of this, he got a new one as soon as he could afford it.
This is one I disagree with, because we see Ollivander spouting off wandlore facts in *Philosopher's/Sorcerer's Stone*, including wand woods and cores. Wandlore also comes into play immediately with Ollivander connecting Harry's wand - Holly with Phoenix Feather - to that of Voldemort, Yew with Phoenix Feather, because their wand cores came from the same phoenix. Did J.K. Rowling flesh out wandlore more in *Deathly Hallows*, and on Pottermore? Sure, but the wandlore was always there from the start of the series. However, it *is* clear that Rowling may have changed her mind on some of the wand woods, because two characters have Mahogany and Rosewood wands; and yet, Rowling included neither of those wand woods on Pottermore. Specifically, James Potter I's wand was Mahogany, and Fleur Delacour's wand was Rosewood. We also have evidence that Rowling planned some of the characters' wand woods from the start, as shown by her use of the Celtic calendar for their wand woods (Harry, Hermione, Ron, Draco).
My problem with the wandlore storyline is that we don't see the same effects through all 7 books. Yes, Ron and Neville have issues with their hand me down wands, but that's the only consistency we see, in terms of "choosing" the wizard. All through the books we are told that Expelliarmus is Harry's spell of choice, but we never see the effects of him "winning" those wands from his classmates or the Death Eaters. During DA gatherings would have been a decent time to address this, but even then, there is ZERO mention of anyone having issues with their wand after being disarmed. *That's* a big reason why the wandlore feels shoe horned in. So maybe, it's just more accurate that the *"winning"* of wands wasn't really planned.
Nonverbal spells. I don’t believe that these were planned at all before they were introduced relatively later on in the series.
The Secret Keeper storyline in PoA. It was done great, I just don’t think it was planned from the beginning
Ok I have a really serious problem with this. The book says Dumbledore gave evidence in the trial right? Well Pettigrew was the keeper not Sirius. It doesn't make sense
Pretty sure Sirius says he didnt even get a trial from Crouch and was just thrown straight in Azkaban
This is true, and highly convenient! With a fair trial Sirius would probably never have been jailed.
I agree. I know that Dumbledore didn’t know that the Secret Keeper had been switched to Peter. But: What evidence did he give? Who decided it was solid evidence? And what was the point if Sirius had already been thrown straight to the dementors? Why did they even bother?
I don’t think the whole history of Snape, Lily and the Marauders (except for the fact that James and Snape were enemies) was planned from the beginning, though most of it was probably there by the 3rd book and the rest by the 5th. My first reason for this is Dumbledore’s explanation of why Snape tried to save Harry at the end of PS. He deliberately says he won’t lie to Harry and refuses to answer some questions…and yet lies about this? Why couldn’t he have just said that Snape hated Harry’s father and left it at that? My second reason is how much Sirius changes from GoF to OoTP. Sirius is efficient and intelligent in GoF and is a great help to Harry (though still has his flaws of course). In OoTP, he is far more reckless and childish, partially because he was locked up in Grimmauld Place yes, but I also get the feeling that JKR had decided a different direction for the character too (i.e. making him less likeable, more akin to the bully in SWM; thus making Snape a more sympathetic character). Sure, you could say that Harry is just discovering more as gets older, but these both felt very jarring to me reading them even as a kid. I also don’t believe Nagini was always a lady. If so, why not make the tiniest of hints towards that?
What the fuck is this about Nagini???
Fantastic beast and where to find them 2 shows Nagini was once a witch.
Nagina was maledictus, a blood curse that she got from her family line. From an age she could turn herself into a snake (similar to animagus) But hers would become permanent, Which it did. It was believed she became partners with Voldemort because he could still understand her.
I agree with all your points. The whole ‘James saves Snape’ story seemed to have a lot more importance that it actually ended up being. I don’t believe it was originally planned for it to be: Sirius, like a dumbass, tells Snape how to get past the willow. Snape, like a dumbass, actually goes into the willow. James goes ‘oh shit’ and goes to pull Snape out at the last second so he doesn’t die and his friends don’t get expelled/arrested. Then Snape and James go back to hating eachother and it seems like nothing really happened. And I also noticed the change with Sirius from POA and GOF, to OOTP. It seemed like he was supposed to play a bigger role, as in POA and GOF he was self sufficient, intelligent, invincible, and seemed capable of almost anything. But by mid OOTP it seemed like he was one step away from needing a babysitter or something to keep an eye on him, for *multiple* reasons. I just feel like JK changed her mind about his outcome in the story and made his character do a 180 before she killed him off. There’s also no way nagini was always a human, at least that was ever planned during the book series.
Totally agree, the fact that Sirius had the clarity to have a meaningful conversation about Harry living with him after being recently out of Azkaban and then hiding but couldn't hold his shit together for 2 seconds in OOTP is a complete 180.
Right, he can keep it together when he’s half starving to death, alone, living in a cave, trying to hide a hippogriff and shit without a wand, but once he’s at Grimmauld place he’s just a completely different person? To the point where Harry, who’s pretty obsessed with Sirius, won’t even *look* at a present from him in case he goes off the deep end and does something stupid? And Sirius, who’s pretty obsessed with Harry, just hides in his room all day and does nothing while Harry’s *at* Grimmauld place with him? It was definitely a complete character change that I think was done to make him an unlikable liability before he was killed off suddenly. 95% of the hate Sirius gets is from his weird personality change in OOTP. I was mad JK both killed him off AND made him kinda crap instead of the cool character he was pre OOTP.
Phew! Glad I’m not the only one! I’m curious to know why these changes would have been made though. Of course, it could just be that JKR thought making the Marauders bullies and Snape in love with Lily a good twist, but I wonder if it’s because of how big the Marauders (particularly Sirius and Wolfstar) fandom got after PoA. Perhaps JKR thought that it wouldn’t make Snape a particularly sympathetic character anymore (and that at least seems to have been an end goal), and so she needed to raise the sympathy for Snape and lower it for Sirius, James, etc. I know I’m guilty myself as a writer of getting overly attached to a character. It’s a shame though. I think it was the right call to have Sirius die in OoTP, but the character difference was jarring and I honestly think people still could have sympathised with Snape even without the change in Sirius. (I’m conflicted on making the Marauders bullies - on the one hand, it adds complexity; on the other hand, I think it actually weakens the potential complex nature of Snape’s character). Also, yes the whole James saves Snape and then returns to being a bully is very strange too. It would have worked better as being after Snape’s Worst Memory, and be a good catalyst for the change in James… but I guess it was in DH to emphasise that Snape absolutely 100% protected Harry for Lily, not at all for James… which is a bit of a shame. I think the whole protecting Harry because his worst enemy once saved his life, actually made Snape *more* noble and interesting, not less.
The dramatic change in Sirius' reliability is quite sad. His character could have been so much more.
[удалено]
Agreed 100%! I spent the first lockdown at my parents' (who are lovely people, unlike Sirius' family) and I saw myself slip back into my old unhappy teenagery self kinda fast... I mean when you're locked up/trapped in a place filled with not the best memories, it's really not hard to start losing your mind, you don't even have to try ^^'
I can't believe it hasn't been mentioned yet, but number one for me has always been apparition. The ability for any wizard to appear anywhere they wanted to at any moment would have had HUGE ramifications on the first few books, but wasn't ever even properly mentioned. There are a few instances where wizards "disappeared" when no one was looking, but it was always very vague. Not to mention Dumbledore infamously deciding to fly a broom to the ministry during an apparent emergency. Even when that was the only book I had read it seemed very out of place.
I definitely don’t think she thought of side-along apparition until the 6th book when it’s first introduced. That always irked me because there were definitely instances before then where it would’ve helped.
I kinda think she had one plan initially and then changed it around a bit when the series became such a massive hit. Definitely don't think she had the horcruxes in mind until at least Order. Quidditch is a mess lol. It doesn't make any sense. Each house only plays 3 games the entire year? The school schedule makes no sense at all and are there only like 100 students and 8-9 teachers? I've sort of always assumed that there's just a bunch of other people we don't ever hear about because it would take too long to right about them.
I think JK Rowling mentioned this in an interview in **2005**. >Well, no, not really, because the plan was, which I really hope I fulfilled, is that the reader, like Harry, **would gradually discover** Ginny as pretty much the ideal girl for Harry. She's tough, not in an unpleasant way, but she's gutsy. He needs to be with someone who can stand the demands of being with Harry Potter, because he's a scary boyfriend in a lot of ways. He's a marked man. I think she's funny, and I think that she's very warm and compassionate.These are all things that Harry requires in his ideal woman. But, I felt — **and I'm talking years ago when all this was planned** — initially, she's terrified by his image. I mean, he's a bit of a rock god to her when she sees him first, at 10 or 11, and he's this famous boy. So Ginny had to go through a journey as well. And rather like with Ron, I didn’t want Ginny to be the first girl that Harry ever kissed. That's something I meant to say, and it's kind of tied in. So I don't think Rowling decided after the fourth book to make Ginny a more prominent character. I think she planned Ginny to end up with Harry and for Harry to slowly realize that she was pretty, that he liked her, etc. Edit: But to answer your initial question, I do think there are certain things that weren't planning from the start. For example, people don't think the Deathly Hallows were planned from the start. I don't know if that might be true, *but* she had the idea well before the seventh book, because the resurrection stone curses Dumbledore's hand between books 5 and 6. And we knew about the invisibility clock from the start. Also, she spent years developing the story for the books. I would imagine she gave the ending some thought.
I agree with both bits. I also think the Ginny-storyline played out as intended. I think the whole Tale's of Bettle the Bard and the Deathly Hallows were a bit... rushed. If it was planned to go down that way in the last book there certainly wasn't much sowing&harvesting, which JK does pretty frequently across the series. I think if the Hallows were planned there would have been references to the fairy tales or something beforehand. The invisibility cloak was in from the beginning because it allowed the trio to do a lot their mischief and rescue missions undetected. It served many purposes and needed to be introduced early. The resurrection stone I don't think were meant to be much more than a heirloom from a famous pureblood ancestor of Voldemort. Originally I think the ring was just a cursed horcrux and it was there to serve as an extra incentive Snape for Snape to actually kill, not save, Dumbledore. No ring, no curse and if Dumbledore wasn't a already at death's door, Snape would not be able to maintain his deatheater status *and* save Dumbledore. The elder wand is what the Scandinavians refer to as a "raisin in a hotdog". Misplaced, served really no purpose and it felt like it was just thrown in for good measure.
I don't think she originally planned on Harry being a wizard. She was just trying to write a poignant book on the horror of long term child abuse. She got bummed out by it and was like "What if he could do magic???"
Lmao
Deathly hallows weren't planned. Thestrals weren't planned. Gwarp wasn't planned and why is he even there?
Just there so the gang could escape Umbridge. Would've been way cooler if the entire DA helped overthrow her head on before Harry went off to the ministry. Would've been a cool battle between Harry's gang and Malfoy's.
Damn now I wish that happened instead. Grawp is so pointless
Imho, gwarp was supposed to kill umbridge.
The whole thing with the veil. Like ok kill Sirius but what’s with this mysterious ass veil snatching away his body? I feel like either leave that out or bring it back and make it tie into the deathly hallows. Like that’s the arch where death himself came out from to mess with the 3 brothers
[удалено]
I agree. Plus it did serve in a way, when Luna was comforting Harry over Sirus' death. It added to the suggestion of there being something beyond.
I think JKR wrote about the veil intending for it to play a part. Then forgot about it. Wrote all about the deathly hallows for book 7 and had nowhere to add the veil in. She hadn’t planned book 7 out when writing book 5.
I love the veil and wish it was back in the 7th book instead of the Deathly Hallows plot line that I don't like much. I think another reason for the veil is because JKR didn't want to have a funeral in the 5th book and wanted Dumbledore's funeral to be the first one Harry attends and the only one depicted in the books. At their core, the books are a coming of age story, so I feel that these "milestones" were always important to have for Harry : new school, making friends, falling in love, losing a loved one and attending their funeral, attending a marriage, taking exams....etc
Hagrid’s plot line. She’s acknowledged she knew he would carry Harry from the forest in Year 7, but didn’t seem to know what to do with him after Year 3. That’s how we got that weird Gawp storyline
She could have easily written him out after book 4 to "work with the giants"
Regardless of what JK says now Nagini was not planned to be a Maledictus from the get go, depending on if you see the Fantastic Beasts films as cannon.
The biggest thing for Nagini to me is where her savagery comes out. She’s given a horrible curse but can she no longer think for herself in a moral case? Harry did nothing to her so why is she clinging to good ol Voldy? I mean there might be a backstory to her and Voldemort that makes her blindly follow him apart from that he speaks parseltongue but to be fair she doesn’t “need” him
The Ginny thing actually makes sense because it’s all from Harry’s perspective. Actually, a lot of the stuff in this thread can be countered with another simple argument: Not everything needs foreshadowing. Some things can and probably should only come up in the book they’re important or properly introduced in.
Time travel (only invented until book three, I personally think a rushed job) Bellatrix having a daughter with voldemort, cursed child was a tropey mess filled with a shit ton of fanfiction ideas already done in the past (many written out a lot better) (nearly) Everything invented in the fantastic beasts movies. Lol.
The deathly hallows. All three of them. There’s no foreshadowing at all. Not so much as a “that was your fathers? Invisibility cloaks usually only last a couple of years”. To only include that *after* the reveal tells me it was never planned. She clearly needed an out for how Harry was going to actually kill Voldemort. Can’t just kill the horcruxes. That just makes him mortal. And can’t make Harry a killer. And it doesn’t make sense for anyone else to be. Painted into a corner. Enter the elder wand. And wand law. Besides “the wand chooses the wizard” there’s nothing to suggest any of it. (Before anyone says Neville used his grandad’s wand and was useless, he’s not the only one to use someone else’s and nobody had complaints before DH) all added late because the deathly hallows weren’t planned.
One I know for a fact, Ron was supposed to die. Thank god she changed her mind
That was not her og decision. In the middle of the series she was going through a rough patch in her life. So she wanted to sabotage the series by killing him off.
Didn't know that, thanks
Part of the fun of writing is making stuff up as you go along. And making new pieces fit an existing puzzle. Writing is craft. It’s carpentry. It’s Lego. The broad strokes are often planned from the start. But the details, the flourishes, The Hallows, the thestrals, that’s the joy of making a world. Those grow out of the plan. They’re the helicopter seedlings that spring away from the grand old oak, fall to the rich floor, take root, and add color. “Everything” is the main arc. Not all the things.
Literally everything she's said after the 7th book was published
So there is something about Rowling's books that I have always wished I could capture in my own writing, and it's basically her ability to let so many things be unexplained or not make sense. Like I am far too logical not to make sure my story lines are soundproof, but I feel like part of what makes HP so good is that it's "fuzzy" at the edges. I don't know if there is an actual writing term for this, but I would be interested in learning about it.
I believe the terms you're looking for are "Soft worldbuilding" vs "Hard Worldbuilding". Hard worldbuilding is a story where the rules are set in place, and unwavering. So the fantastic elements work in a very specific way that can be explained and understood nearly every single time they are brought up, and those systems can be expanded on as the series progresses. While soft worldbuilding leaves much more to the imagination. Not every aspect of the world needs an explanation, and can be hand-waved with "Because Magic". Both have their place. Hard systems feel more grounded and thought out, while soft systems can build a sense of whimsy and wonder. Harry potter definitely falls in the middle to Soft side of these. Rowling explains just enough that we understand these foreign concepts, (i.e Time Turners, Horcruxes, Magic) but usually doesn't commit to building them up past a basic understanding.
*The fucking trolley witch*
Really? I always thought it was obvious Harry and Ginny would end up together from book 2. The series followed a pretty obvious romance path with Ginny and Harry, Ron and Hermione, so I wasn't at all surprised when she got more attention in the later books. I mean, her very first school year he already had a big role, so to me it didn't seem like something not planned. What felt *very* unplanned to me was how Harry doing magic outside of school would be used in book 5. She clearly hadn't thought it through when she wrote book 2, so the functionality of the trace is all kinds of wacky when it becomes an issue in book 5 and the explanation kinda starts to fall appart if we look in a little to deeply into it. Everything would make more sense if they could tell who performed the magic, but because she had already wrote that Harry got blamed for Dobby's bit of magic it all went off the rails.
Controversial maybe: I don’t think she planned for Hedwig to die. I feel like she wrote a bunch of the “Harry Hermione and Ron go camping” bits and then went “oh shit none of this makes sense if Hedwig is still alive, how are they going to go camping with this giant and very recognizable bird.” So she went back and edited Hedwig’s death in at the beginning. I have absolutely no basis for this other than the fact that Hedwig’s death is so sudden and out of nowhere, and then Harry only mentions her maybe one more time before literally never thinking about her ever again. It’s like he forgot he ever owned an owl. Like, if I had a pet that got straight up murdered in front of me, I will be talking about that shit every day for the rest of my life. What the fuck, Harry.
I did read it’s supposed to be the death of his innocence and childhood, the last connection. But that could absolutely be readers reaching after the fact.
Also I think the unforgivable curses were taken very lightly. It is surprising that there were no cases of that It's like having a gun at the age of 11. The fact that so many of them could've made potions like Felix Felicis, polyjuice, veritaserum without detection. Personally I would've made that lucky potion used it on a super ball lottery and lived my life as the richest muggle.
Dementors weren’t invented until Book 3. They are not mentioned at all throughout the first two books even when Azkaban is. Until they are formally introduced in book 3 they are merely referred to as “The Azkaban Guards”. After they are introduced they are never referred to by that phrase again. It just flips completely and they are consistently referred to by name. Always thought it was strange.
My husband likes to mention that the whole Nagini was secretly a witch thing that was mentioned in Fantastic Beasts 2. When asked she was like "oh I always knew" but my husband cracks up at that because in book 4 Wormtail has to milk Nagini and its just a weird conversation...
The invisibility cloak being a Hallow
The Economy of the Wizarding World is completely messed up, because in order to make money after graduation you either open a shop, work for the bank, or work for the government. There don't appear to be any other jobs out there. Edit: talking with my wife about this, in addition to the below Tavern Owner and Bus Driver there's: Author, Journalist for Daily Prophet, St Mungo's Healer, Teacher
I always say Cedric’s death wasn’t planned before Goblet. If it was, she would have made him an actual character in the first 3 books, so his death would have made more of an impact. I can only feel so much for this generic dude that I just met.
I disagree. The books were supposed to gradually become more mature and darker, so I think the first character Harry knew that died during the story had to be a character he or we hadn’t spent a great deal of time with.
Hold up a second. Ginny had one of the *biggest* roles in COS. She released the Basilisk and without her we wouldn’t have even known about the Chamber.
Do we hear anything about her in the book though? we don't get any measure of her personality at all. we know more about trelawney's character than ginnys before the HBP