Seventh Harry Potter Book Named

Croakyvoice writes "JK Rowling has today given fans of the Harry Potter books the name of Book 7 of the very popular series via a Christmas present on her site, to get to the name you need to follow a complicated procedure but thankfully the name of the book has been revealed as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."

Christmas

I'm so obsessed with Harry Potter. This was the best Christmas present she could give out... short of the book itself.

Re:Christmas

I'm not a demanding fan. I'd've settled for a hefty chunk of the advance from the new book. That would be enough of a Christmas present for me. :-)

Re:Christmas

Let's see... I'll give you an analysis NOT based on any preview of actual book, just following what we know so far:

Dumbledore is indispensable character in the series. In most cases he is good "spiritus movens" behind the scenes (Voldemort is the evil one). It must turn out he either didn't really die or his death will not prevent his new appearances (she can always pull out some magic artifact or spell that modifies the effect of the killing spell, or that lets him remain present as ghost or something). However, this will pose difficulties in explaining why then Harry's parents are, well, dead without any buts.

Furthermore, it is clearly implied in last book, in the scene when it happens, that Snape killed him according to their (Dumbledore's and Snape's) previous mutual agreement and arrangement (i.e. if Dumbledore is struck by a non killing, forever tormenting spell, which in fact he was) out of mercy, not hatred (Snape is constantly put in position of suspect, only to slap Harry and readers later for being prejudicial, shame on us!). Therefore, Dumbledore, in one form or another, must show up to clear Snape from convictions for his own murder. If Rowling persist to keep Dumbledore dead, it is probably Snape who will take his place as head of anti-Voldemort coalition. However, this leaves Harry without last fatherly protecting figure, which OTOH may be a part of "large picture" central idea unrolled throughout the story: following Harry's stepwise growing up, from a child into an independent, self-sustaining adult (at which point this story starts losing its magic... not 'Wizardly' magic, which is only a decoration and prop for plots, but the magic of childhood) in a fantasy world.

Re:Christmas

Harry's parents are, well, dead without any buts.

Damn! Assless through eternity. Do they even let you into heaven like that? That was one mean bad guy that did that to them.

Re:Christmas

Here's the thing: Snape was put in a position which couldn't be resolved any other way. He was forced to take the unbreakable vow to protect the Malfoy boy and to help him complete his mission (kill Dumbledore). But the reason Dumbledore trusted him implicitly is because he also asked Snape to take an unbreakable vow to protect Harry at all costs. Once the death eaters infiltrated Hogwarts, Snape had to help Malfoy kill Dumbledore to prevent greater mayhem, to prevent Malfoy's own death, and especially to get the death eaters out of Hogwarts before a confrontation with Harry, which very likely would have led to Harry's death (especially since Dumbledore was killed). When Harry chased Snape, Snape was so much more powerful and skilled than Harry that he could have killed him easily, and there was no reason not to because now everyone knows Snape is a death eater, right? Wrong. Snape wouldn't even let Harry use an unforgivable curse, because that would ultimately harm the boy himself. (Even though Harry already used Crucio on the death eaters. For that offense he is already doomed to Azkaban. But I guess everyone can overlook that because Harry is the boy wonder.)

I say Dumbledore asked Snape to take the vow because I believe they were friends, which makes Snape a tragic figure. He was always hated and misunderstood. Even the girl he had a crush on (Harry's mom) laughed when the other boys would torment Snape, and she even married his chief tormentor. Her protests to stop tormenting Snape were only half-hearted at best. Dumbledore was the ONLY friend Snape ever had, and Snape was forced to kill him. If Rowling makes him the hero in the last book, I will be VERY impressed. As much as I like the books, I only like them because she can spin a good yarn. If she was planning the Snape tragedy from the start, wow. If Snape became a death eater on his own, and who could blame him, while the whole world already hated him? If he chose to be a death eater, then I think Dumbledore ASKED him to take the vow. If Dumbledore asked him to become a death eater to spy on Voldemort, then the unbreakable vow is not needed, Dumbledore has reason to trust Snape, and Snape, in spite of being hated by everyone, and having reason to hate Harry himself, is even more of a heroic figure.

About Harry: Harry IS the final horcrux (or at least the scar on his head is) which makes his hunting and destroying the other horcruxes kind of ironic. We found out in the last book that horcruxes could be living things, such as the snake that embodied Voldemort. When the snake curled around Harry and taunted Dumbledore, telling him that he now has the opportunity to destroy Voldemort forever, I wonder if Dumbledore finally realized that Harry was the horcrux? No one could figure out how Harry managed to survive the attack that killed his parents, the scar was linked to Voldemort (it always hurt when he was around) and it gave Harry powers similar to Voldemort. It was also the scar that the sorting hat wanted to put in Slytherin.

When Dumbledore revealed the prophesy to Harry, we find out that the prophesy could have meant either Potter or Longbottom would be the one to ultimately destroy Voldemort. Dumbledore and Potter did not know why Voldemort had chosen to "attempt to destroy" Harry, but Dumbledore claimed that that was Voldemort's mistake, and the botched attempt was the accident that created Harry and gave him the power to ultimately destroy Voldemort. WRONG! Voldemort's mistake was only in thinking that Harry was the chosen one, his placing of the horcrux was an insurance policy to attempt to cheat fate (and we know from Greek mythology how well that always turns out). Longbottom is the chosen one, he is still the Charlie Brown figure, the one that can't get things right, but who always gets up and tries again. He has been steadily growing in skill and confidence throughout the books, and he will be the one to destroy the final horcrux. The only question is, can the horcrux in the scar be destroyed without a

Re:Christmas

Oddly enough you could summarize many, if not most, fiction and video games that way. BTW, I'm not sure about the "everyone rejoices" part. The last few books have gotten darker and darker and haven't had entirely happy endings.

Hating Harry Potter

only ever succeeds in getting out of it by accident or when a deus ex machina pops up,

Far be it from me to tell people what they should like or dislike. But it seems to me that many of the most strident critics of the Harry Potter books are those who insist on measuring them by inappropriate paradigms, in this case the canons of dramatic criticism. Literature as a whole needn't abide by rules that are instrumental to mimesis (represenation), important as they may be to the medium of drama.

In learning to critique, we oughtn't lose the art of listening.

I have engaged many people in debates over the merits (or lack thereof) of the Harry Potter books. More often than not they are not simply left cold, as Fred_A seems to be. They are positively offended and outraged by them. I think this ponits the way to some of the chief merits of the books, a point I'll return to in a second. But first I should point out that literary merit is an atomic thing that can be measured on a simple scale. There are many kinds of merit a story may have, such as richness of detail, beauty of language, cleverness in plotting, humor, psychological insight. The Potter books are remarkably rich in some dimensions, and simplistic in others.

When it comes to language, for example, Rowling is clever, but is no J.R.R. Tolkien. The great pleasure of rereadign Lord of the Rings for the 99th time is the sheer beauty of the writing. For example, look up the passage where Frodo takes a last walk around Bag End, before leaving it to his despised cousins the Sackville-Bagginses. It is a masterpiece of writing; evocative and far more poetic (as is often the case with Tolkien) than the book's attempts at verse.

It is also true that the Harry Potter books are by no means masterpieces of plotting, to put it mildly. Stories of this sort seldom are. I agree completely with Fred_A's condemnation of the books... but only if we are talking about the movies. Here the books mimetic weaknesses are on full display, and few if any of their diagetic (narrative) strengths.

The books' greatest strengths are humor and psychological insight. And its important to note that the latter is not necessarily displayed according to the methods of drama, which demand that such insights be shown by the action of plot events on the characters. Narrative arts have no such fundamental constraint. Which brings us to why Harry Potter is so roundly hated by the cultural canon crowd.

Real life is not dramatic. Unlike a play or movie, most acts are not prompted by motivation, but by habit. People in power, even good people, exercise their power for the most part mindlessly. Nobody knows this better than children, who have no power of their own and must live in accordance with rules set by others. Many of those rules are set for the childrens' benefit; some for the convenience of their betters; others are there just because they've always been there.

The importance of this truth to the Potter books hit me when I was reading one of the many passages in which Professor MacGonagle, a good and benevolent adult character, fails to listen and uses her authority in an unreasoning way. In various ways we are told that this character is admirable, intelligent and good; but these qualities are never shown in her actions towards Harry. In a drama this would be completely wrong. This apparent inconsistency had always bothered me, but then it struck me that this quite true to life. As a parent, I don't always take time to make the right decision, and often make the wrong decision because it is easier. On reflection, it seems right that all the adults Harry encounters regularly exercise their power unreasonably, even the ones who have his best interests at heart. It is equally necessary that Harry defy them, even though sometimes this turns out to be a terrible mistake.

In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.

Re:Hating Harry Potter

One does not come to truly appreciate the wretchedness of Rowling's prose, until one reads the series aloud. The adverb-abuse, particularly in the third book is painfully annoying, and I can't give her any sort of free pass on style. To her credit, after the third book, she seems to have figured out how to occasionally slip a sentence or two in with less than 3 adverbs.

The importance of this truth to the Potter books hit me when I was reading one of the many passages in which Professor MacGonagle, a good and benevolent adult character, fails to listen and uses her authority in an unreasoning way

Holy crap that's gotten tiresome after 6 fucking books about "dumb adults".

In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.

But not subtly so. Reading Rowling's subversive message is like stepping in front of a train.
There's another series of books out there called "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - which is also centered around the idea of stupid adults. Only the book is so obviously on the campy side, it's not as painful to watch as the lives of the protagonists get worse and worse on the failings of adults. It's funny, in a black way. The subversive genius of these books is the moral self-doubt the protagonists go through, as they question the morality of their own actions, as necessity for survival. Mister Snickett's prose is a lot more fun to read as well. Rowling had started out on the campy side in her first book, but quickly abandoned that, so now the whole series is situated uncomfortably somewhere inbetween campy and serious.

Rowling makes Harry exceptional only in ways that enable him to fight power, never in ways that allow him to wield it over others.

Two words. Septus Semprum. To me - this is the only interesting thread in the whole series; Will Harry learn the lesson Snape learned (though failed to teach, out of his inability to forgive)? - only it's the same lesson Anakin Skywalker learned.

Question to CowboyNeal

What part of the "stuff that matters", don't you understand?

Re:Question to CowboyNeal

...or the hairiness of black holes.

Hey, you leave my girlfriend out it!

Damn...

... I was hoping it would be called "Harry Potter and the Back Alley Abortion."

Seriously, why do people keep on reading this stuff? :: goes and pre orders five copies-- one for self, one for wife, one for sister, one for children, one for mother ::

New Name

No, It's going to be named " Harry Potter and the Franchise of Sequels."

Re:New Name

For what it's worth, J.K. Rowling intended there to be seven books in the series from Day One --- before she even knew whether the first one would sell enough to get the others published. She has said unequivocally that Book 7 will be the last (except MAYBE someday she'll publish all her unpublished notes that didn't make it into the books, or got changed before they made it into the books, etc.), and she'll stick to it.

If she doesn't stick to it, THEN you're more than welcome to pull out the "money-grubbing" accusations.

Re:Damn...

"Harry," said Dumbledore, "we frown upon sex with younger students, especially freshmen boys. You see, this is why we have female goblins and elves around here."

"I don't quite understand, Sir," said Harry.

Dumbledore took him by the shoulder. "Ah, Harry, that's what I like about you. Sometimes you're thick as a brick. Which allows us to keep the series going for so many books."

Hermione interrupted. "*I* understand, Sir."

"And I've been meaning to speak to you, Hermione. About those candles, broomsticks, and bowling pins the housekeepers report littering your bedchamber..."

---- sometimes, you just DON'T want to see the parts Rowling edited out of the draft manuscripts...

Re:Damn...

Somehow, I want to imagine Harry as a closet RPG and fantasy geek who keeps his 'hobbies' hidden because of the ridicule hed' get from his friends for being a real wizard who's into fantasy...

"Harry", said Hermione, "Are you ready to... take this to the next level?"

"You bet", said Harry. "I'll put on my robe and wizard hat."

"What? That's not what I'm..."

"I cast Level 3 eroticism. You turn into a beautiful woman, instead of a flat dork."

"What did you call me?!?!"

"I wave my wand of undressing and you turn naked."

"You have no idea what to do, do you?"

"I look through the Pokedex for the best creature. Hermione, I choose you!"

"My god, you're somehow more pathetic than a muggle dork, you play pretend magic even though you're a real wizard?!"

"Okay, if that's the way you want to play, then I'll use this tome of unspeakable horrors I found in the library. The Necronomicon."

"What?! Harry, you're not supposed to-"

"ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn! Ia! Ia!"

"My god, what is that thing!?!? It's all tentacle and-"

"I hope you enjoy this, Hermione, I saw this in a Japanese cartoon once..."

"*NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!* *mrrrrhhhh*"

Ah, well. One can dream, can't he? (References to bloodninja [adamchance.com] and Cthulu [yog-sothoth.com])

What's a Hallow?

Our friendly Webster dictionary says: (and I quote) "Etymology: Middle English halowen, from Old English hAlgian, from hAlig holy -- more at HOLY 1 : to make holy or set apart for holy use 2 : to respect greatly : VENERATE synonym see DEVOTE" Interesting -- unless there's something that I'm missing, from earlier books in the series? Thoughts?

Re:

Knowing Rowling's punning nomenclature, "Hallows" could be a pun on "hollows" (in the sense of a small, steep valley) / "hallowed [ground]". It's also an old word for a Catholic/Anglican saint, so it may have something to do with that.

Either way, or ev

Re:What's a Hallow?

I don't think so. As another poster pointed out, "hallows" can mean "relics". Now, what would qualify as a "relic" in the previous book, that's associated with death?

Perhaps a good translation of the title might be ... "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes".

Re:What's a Hallow?

It's almost certainly a references to the Horcruxes mentioned in the previous book.
They are 'Hallowed' magical objects into which "He Who Must Not Be Named" has poured a portion of his soul, to keep himself functionally immortal. The last one we saw did a real number on Dumbledore's hand, so yes, these things will convey serious hit points.

Harry's gonna have to destroy them all before he goes head-to-head with ... Him ... again.

Re:What's a Hallow?

The OED has "hallow" (the noun form) meaning one of the following:

      1. A saint, a god of the heathens, or something belonging thereto (like a relic);
      2. A loud shout or cry, to get dogs to chase, or to draw attention;
      3. The parts of a hare given to hounds as a reward or encouragement after a chase. (I really hope it's this meaning that Rowling has in mind!)

Hallows?

Hallowed are the Ori.

You heard it wrong

It's actually: "Harry Potter: the plot is shallow".

Harry Potter And The Slow News Day?

Seriously, a book has been titled? So what?

I can't believe this is on the Beeb and Slashdot's front pages.

Re:Harry Potter And The Slow News Day?

The same can be said of the U.S. military in US. the only difference is that you can enjoy harry potter.

disclaimer : i'm neither british nor american. :)

A better book

Would be Hirsute Ceramist and the Holy Lambda [mit.edu] for those of us who like Lord Voldemort's Schemes.

Darned and drat

I was so hoping for Harry Potter and the Closed Casket Funerals. Guess I should have known that that wasn't going to happen.

Harry Potter and...

I was hoping it was going to be "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth" and that it would come bundled with a copy
of "An Inconvenient Truth" and some moon sapphires...

Four Hallows of Arthurian legend

"The Hallows could refer to the Four Hallows of Arthurian legend. They are intimately connected to the Grail and ultimately probably go back to the Four Treasures of the Tuatha de Danaan of Irish myth.

The Four Hallows are:

The Cup or Chalice
The Baton or Wand
The Sword or Dagger
The Coin, Disc or Pentacle

I think we were right all along in connecting the horcruxes to the four elements. These hallows are associated with the elements, and match up quite nicely to the remaining horcruxes:

Cup (HH)
Baton or Wand (RR)
Sword or Dagger (GG)
Pentacle (SS locket)

Just my two knuts!"

Read here: http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=368 09&st=0 [leakylounge.com]

www.jkrowling.com

If you go to her home, click on the eraser and you will be taken to a room -- you'll see a window, a door and a mirror.

In the mirror, you'll see a hallway. Click on the farthest doorknob and look for the Christmas tree. Then click on the center of the door next to the mirror and a wreath appears. Then click on the top of the mirror and you'll see a garland.

Look for a cobweb next to the door. Click on it, and it will disappear. Now, look at the chimes in the window. Click on the second chime to the right, and hold it down. The chime will turn into the key, which opens the door. Click on the wrapped gift behind the door, then click on it again and figure out the title yourself by playing a game of hangman.

Damn...

Mod me down if you must but damn, the one time I don't have mod points to use and like the majority of comments are just flamebait and trolling. Quite a few nerds are into Harry Potter, let's not forget nerds extend into the fantasy genre, and there has been plenty of news on such things as Lord of the Rings or Warhammer on /. in the past...So why the hate for HP? If you dislike the novels for their story and such, thats your opinion you are entitled too but damn, don't dis on Neil for putting up a story many of us are interested in.

HP and the (ADJECTIVE | NOUN ADJECTIVAL) NOUN 7

Man, that naming formula is even more boring than Star Wars' "Episode NUMBER: VERB of the NOUN".

Best /. post ever

One of the best comments ever was in a long thread about the technicalities of RAID hardware. Someone wrote four long paragraphs, and halfway through the second, tacked on to the end of one sentence "and besides, Hermione dies in the last book anyways." *

The outrage was tremendous because, before you even realized you were reading a spoiler, you'd finished and comprehended it. Sweetest troll ever.

* No one knows who dies in the last book, if someone does. At the time, Rowling explicitly said she hadn't decided who. It wasn't a real spoiler, and isn't now. Don't freak out.

"Harry Potter and the Mountain of Royalties"

As the series is sometimes referred to by less successful working writers.

But at least Rowling writes her own books. Tom Clancy seems to have given up writing in favor of licensing his name. Latest "Splinter Cell" book: [amazon.com] "Tom Clancy" in big letters at top of front cover. "Written by David Michaels" in small type in grey letters on black background at bottom.

Harry hits puberty

_Harry Potter and the Dark, Moist Cave_.

Re:The Title

"Harry Potter and the Death Knell of American Literature"

Are you implying that because an English writer will dominate the Best Seller list for a while?

Or perhaps you are concerned about millions of kids who have discovered books can be entertaining thanks to Rowlings books?

Or maybe you're just point out how stupid you are in that you didn't realize one of the biggest selling modern writers is neither American nor are her novels set in America, or that literature and popular books are completely independant?

Re:The Title

Amen. I teach 5th grade and it is astonishing to see how engrossed nearly all the students are with the Harry Potter franchise. It's not the movies that draw them in either, that's just icing on the cake. I ask them about a new Potter film and they will tell me, "It's not as good as tht Book." or "This was different in the Book." Older children and young adults love these stories, and why not. A Fantasy world set in the modern era, with young teens as the protagonists who become wrapped up in a mystery at a fantastic magical castle while casting magical spells, defeating monsters and overcoming issues teens their age face (puberty, dating, school/studies). Who has the right to say to readers, "This is crap, read something better," especially to budding readers who are already at an age when young boys begin dropping off from reading as it becomes "uncool." Maybe Harry Potter isn't listed on "great literature" lists, who cares. Kids are reading, and that is reallly the most important part. They are challenging themselves to read a significant novel of considerable depth and length for people their age. If they enjoy these stories, you can turn them on to other works they might enjoy to push their boundaries and reading capabilities. Enough witht he Harry Potter bashing, if you don't like them, don't read them.

Re:The Title

They're also, by the way, great books for brushing up on a foreign language: they're translated into just about everything and the way each book is successively harder gives you a chance to start slow and be reading at a young adult level by the end.

Re:The Title

They're also, by the way, great books for brushing up on a foreign language

Yes. That's why I buy the British editions and not those translated into my native American. I had no idea that they called sorcerers "philosophers" in the UK!

Re:The Title

"This is crap, read something better,"

I don't think anyone's saying that, especially not to kids. It's the hordes of adults who go on about it being some quantum leap in the evolution of literature, who are somewhat bemusing (or annoying, depending on your perspective).

Re:The Title

I don't like it because of one point you raised (but I think you didn't emphasize enough)- the protagonist is merely average. And yet he manages to overcome through sheer luck of the draw and general bumblingness someone who is by no means average and has an advantage over him in just about every way possible, other than being bigoted.

Reminds me of that quote from Spacebattles:
"Evil will always win... because good is STUPID!"

It just annoys the hell out of me that the bigots always lose because they're bigoted. Sure they're bigots, but I really don't care. The fact that Harry's incompetent bugs the hell out of me a lot more.

Re:The Title

Harry is the anti-geek: he isn't smart, isn't the best in school, doesn't give a rat's ass about magic, etc. The only thing he is good at is flying his stick; Harry is a JOCK! People love him, help him cheat or give him secret help so that he always looks good in public and the people with real talent around him are diminished. His only claim to fame is his heritage.

Re:The Title

Maybe it's because the character has flaws that millions of people identify with him?
If you look at Bilbo, Frodo (as you pointed out), or, actually, most contemporary (low- or high-brow) fantasy, you're going to find bumbling characters who make mistakes and only pull through because of Deus Ex Machina, luck of the draw, or some moral accomplishment.
 
I think it's the fact that we all recognize our own faults and inner issues, and can see them portrayed in these characters, that makes us, as readers, identify with the heroes of these stories.
We fuck up. We make mistakes. Sometimes, we're jerks to our friends, we don't put enough time into our relationships, and we make the wrong moral decisions.
Superman doesn't have those problems.
Harry Potter has those problems.
 
Remember the success of Spider-Man? From the Wikipedia article: The Spider-Man series broke ground by featuring a hero who himself was an adolescent, to whose "self-obsessions with rejection, inadequacy, and loneliness" young readers could relate.

Re:The Title

If he were a superman, that would send the wrong message too: "Oh, well, he can do that because he's really clever and powerful." He's not lazy, but he's not particularly studious either. He actually has to work much harder than Hermione to learn the same things (most of the time, though, he's up to his ass in schoolwork and other problems as well.) On the other hand, he's no slouch--he still manages to be near the head of his class. And he pays dearly for all of his flaws--he makes so many mistakes in Order of the Phoenix that he almost gets everyone killed, and in the end, Sirius Black pays for it with his life.

What he does have is loyalty, fairness, kindness, generosity, and courage. In every situation, that's what carries him through. In standard fantasy parlance, he'd be a Paladin. The books are about the power of love vs. the power of hatred (ironic that Christians try to ban these books--they just don't get much of anything, do they?) His mother's protection is just a metaphor for that--but his mother's protection, and Dumbledore's, is gone now. In the final book he will have to grow up and face Voldemort alone. He's going to have to work like a trojan to be able to pull it off. But Rowling has set it up so that he's going to be tested most in the very qualities that have carried him so far. All is not what it seems. If Harry behaves like a jerk in the final book, he will lose a great deal, even if he wins the final battle.

Re:The Title

(ironic that Christians try to ban these books--they just don't get much of anything, do they?)

Actually, most Christians DO get this. It's just the few idiot ones that don't. Christianity is like any other social group on the planet. It's made up of humans, some of which are morons. Unfortunately, Christian morons seem to get more press than those of other stripes.

I realize that there are many here on Slashdot that, for one reason or another, have thier hate on for Christians. I'm not going to address that bigotry right now. But for those that don't hate Christians, but really do think they all want to ban Harry Potter, I recommend going here and reading:

http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/12/21/laura -mallory-and-the-misguided-crusade/ [lashawnbarber.com]

Not all Christians want to ban Harry Potter. Most don't, and those that do are a small moronic minority.

Re:The Title

Psst! Hey, kid, c'mon, try it. All your friends are doing it. It don't hurt no one. Here, just read a couple of pages...

While not a fan of Harry Potter (is derivative of other children's books and treats magic the way Star Treck handles science), they have gotten my daughter away from basic picture books and started her reading actual novels. I can't complain about that. Now if only, her reading skills were a little more advanced so that I didn't have to jump in and help her figure out new words ever two minutes. What's wrong with our schools? Don't they teach reading in Kindergarten? /daughter is 6

Re:

Harry Potter is British. What does it have to do with American literature?

Re:Orginal title

And a good thing, because that title would have embarrassed the proofreader something fierce.

Re:Spoiler

Despite your troll, you've almost got it right. The final chapter of the final book will actually be entitled "The Boy Who Lived," just like the first chapter of the first book.

Note how clever that turn of phrase is: you can look at the table of contents and see that chapter title, but you won't know until you read the book whether it means 1) the boy who used to live, or 2) the boy who fought Voldemort (again) and lived.

Re:realmuggles.com

The writer behind the books on that site took it to court and lost. Apparently the court said that there was no plagiarism but also that she (Stouffler) had lied and doctored evidence. Seems like the last name Potter only occurs in later reprints and not in the original ones... Which is pretty damning proof that she was trying to cash in but didn't trust her proof that much. She applead to a higher court but verdict was upheld. My highly personal opinion: Stouffler is a golddigger and you took the bait hook, line and sinker. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Stouffer [wikipedia.org]

Celebrity author syndrome

Amen to that.

A couple of years ago, I did a little work around the periphery of the publishing industry. At no point was I even close to anybody who was close to anybody who was involved with any of the Harry Potter books. However, a few of the things that were common knowledge then seem particularly relevant now.

What J.K. Rowling is increasingly suffering from is Celebrity Author Syndrome. This, simply put, is a state in which no editor has both the guts and the backing from above to stand up to the author in question and insist upon necessary changes. In some cases, this goes hand in hand with the author being a self-important prick, but that's absolutely *not* an essential pre-requisite (and I have absolutely *no* idea what JKR is like to work with).

Let me explain...

The vast majority of manuscripts that are submitted to publishers by first-time authors are seriously long. They contain repetition of scenes, subplots that are never developed, page after page of background exposition on characters and vast amounts of unnecessary description and digression. Reading the average freshly-submitted manuscript is a pretty depressing alternative; by the time you've waded through all the padding, you can hardly remember anything about the plot and the characters. Now, of course, most manuscripts submitted to publishers go straight in the bin. Occasionally, however, one will be considered interesting enough to pick up. What happens in this case (with some variation across the industry, but the model remains more or less the same) is that some money might change hands and the publisher might indicate to the author that they could conceivably be convinced to publish the book, provided the author work with a designated editor to strip the work down to something fit for public consumption.

This process is often pretty gruelling for the first-time author. They've suddenly got an editor, who they likely see as a pen-pushing bureaucrat and spawn of the devil, demanding that they cut out whole chunks of words that the author has sweated blood over. Emotionally, this is surprisingly difficult. However, most first-time authors who have made it this far have a strong incentive to comply with changes demanded by their editor and will comply. After all, the editor's say-so can kill the book. The publisher looses relatively little from killing the project, while for the author, this could mean months or years of work going to waste. Ultimately, it is very rare that a book is not improved beyond recognition by this process.

However, this dynamic changes massively with a celebrity author (as in, a celebrity who is famous for writing, not a celebrity who has decided to write a book). The publisher suddenly has a lot more to loose if the relationship goes sour. Whatever contractual obligations the author might be under, they know that they'll always have a market for their words elsewhere in the future. If the author is a prick, they can therefore change editors at will and refuse to make changes as they see fit.

However, even if the author is the nicest, most compliant person in the world, the editor is still going to be under a lot of stress. They know, and the people who pay them know, that this author has been lucrative in the past. The editor knows that his future job security almost certainly depends to a large degree on him managing this author right. There is therefore an enormous temptation to just sit back and assume that the author knows best (even though the wisest authors might realise themselves that this isn't the case).

We saw the results of this with the 5th and 6th Harry Potter books (and to a lesser extent, the 4th). The 5th book in particular had a stupidly high number of redundant scenes, most of which could have been excised at will. The bizarre, only-half-realised political commentary surrounding Dolores Umbridge ended up eating a significant chunk of the book without adding anything significant to it. The character could (and in an earlier book, would) have been ha