Tuesday, February 28, 2012

Harry Potterrific Names



Now I don’t know if you noticed, but J.K. Rowling gives her characters some pretty goofy sounding names sometimes.  Believe it or not, there’s a reason for that. Rowling has this very Dickens-like style when it comes to naming her characters.  Which makes sense because Dickens was actually one of her inspirations. I don’t think that any author just names their characters without thinking, but Rowling in particular has a pretty clear reasoning behind all of her character names.  As a little kid reading the series, obviously, I didn’t really see a lot of the cool things that Rowling was foreshadowing with these character names, but now that I’m a smarty-pants English major, I’ve come to appreciate the true cleverness behind it all.  So I’ve come up with a list of my seven (because seven is the most magically powerful number!) favorites to show the awesomeness that lies in these characters names.

Remus Lupin: Looking back on it now, dear old Lupin’s name seems to be the most obvious.  “Lupus” means wolf so if you know anything about biology, it’s pretty easy to guess what Lupin’s little secret is.

Sirius Black:  “Sirius” is the name of the brightest star in the sky.  So in that way, it seems a bit strange for the name of an escaped prisoner of Azkaban.  But because we know this little tidbit of information about the meaning of Sirius’s name, we may also question whether or not the rumors about him as a murderer are true since light is often a symbol of goodness and according to this definition, Sirius has about as much light as you can get.  Similarly to Lupin’s name, Sirius’s name also clues us in to his animalistic form as Sirius is known as the “Dog Star” because it is part of the constellation “Canis Major.”

Dolores Umbridge:  Aside from the fact that Umbridge’s name already sounds unpleasant, the word “umbrage” actually means displeasure.  So it’s no surprise that Umbridge is as horrible as she is.

Sybill Trewlaney:  “Sybil” was actually a seer from Greek mythology.  This obviously makes perfect sense based on Trewlaney’s profession, but it also clues the reader into the fact that she may not be just a fraud like Harry, Ron, and Hermione often think.  And of course, in the end she happens to have made one of the most important prophecies of all time, concerning Voldemort and Harry.

Voldemort:  Voldemort’s name is actually taken from a French phrase, "Vol de mort," which means “to flee from death.”  Voldemort’s main goal in the series is to ensure his invincibility, stretching his soul to its very limits all so that he can avoid death.  So really this choice of name is perfect.  According to J.K. Rowling, the “t” is Voldemort is supposed to be silent…but we’ll talk some more about that later…

Argus Filch:  Okay, so this one is actually my favorite because I JUST discovered why it is the way it is.  I mean, I already knew what “filch” meant.  That on its own is brilliant because Filch is always “filching” illegal items from students and making life hell for them because of it.  And then “Argus” it turns out is actually the name of a dude from Greek mythology who had eyes everywhere on his body.  That’s just so perfect.  Because Filch is totally the “eyes” of the castle, always searching for any troublemakers to punish.  I wish I could say that I stumbled upon this one through my intense study of Greek myths, but really I discovered it through Percy Jackson and the Olympians…STILL THOUGH…awesome.

Draco Malfoy:  My interpretation of this one is gonna be a little goofy compared to the rest.  The rest are like indisputable, but I have some kind of weird ideas about what Draco’s name might be referring to.  Now, I know that “Draco” means “dragon” in Latin.  But I also know that the Hogwarts motto is, “Draco dormiens nunquam titillandus,” which of course means, “Never tickle a sleeping dragon.”  Gotta love the whimsy and charm of Harry Potter.  So here’s what I’m thinking; Rowling could have given Draco any name that she wanted…but she chose to give him a name that is actually referenced in the school motto itself.  Now this may seem far-fetched, but I take this to mean that rather than never “tickling” Draco specifically, it means that Draco is not someone to be messed with.  I mean, he turns out to be kind of a pussy, but he definitely puts on this air as if he owns Hogwarts and that if someone messes with him they’ll pay for it…which they most likely will because he’ll tell Luscious Lucius about it and lord knows that Luscious Lucius Malfoy has got mad game with the bitches.  Right, so there’s that rant.  Then there’s the last name.  “Mal” means bad…so there you go.

So those are my interpretations of some HP character names.  Now that I’m on the subject of names, I have some questions to pose about them.  You know how I said before that Rowling says the “t” in Voldemort isn’t supposed to be pronounced?  Well, I’m pretty sure that every time I hear her say Voldemort, she pronounces the “t.”  So I wonder, did she just start saying it to conform to what her fans had interpreted it as?  Because that is very very unusual for her.  Personally, I believe that once an author has published a book, that book now belongs to the public – the author has some credit in the book’s overall meaning, but it is up to the reader to dissect and interpret different aspects and meaning of the text because everybody gets something different out of every reading.  But J.K. Rowling generally seems to disagree with this.  Like, when she told us all that Dumbledore was gay.  I mean, I can see why someone might interpret that from his mannerisms and such, but nowhere does the author specifically say that he is gay and I don’t think that this has to be universally accepted as a truth because of that reason.

Anyway, aside from the Voldemort thing, she seems to be like this with names most of the time too.  For instance, she has said that Lily’s (as in Harry’s child, Lily) middle name is Luna.  Now, I happen to think that is adorable and wonderful and perfect…but it doesn’t say anywhere in the book that her middle name is Luna, so if anything that seems more like a fanfictiony type thing to claim.  I mean, we have to accept that Albus Severus is Harry’s son’s actual name because it’s written in the book.  But the book says nothing about Lily Luna.  There’s also the whole case of the character “John” Dawlish.  Again, nowhere in any of the books is Dawlish ever referred by his first name, but Rowling has said that she eventually named him “John” due to the enthusiastic reaction to the character by The Leaky Cauldron’s site contributor, John Noe.  I think John Noe is a swell guy and that Dawlish is a great character and everything, (I’ll definitely need to write a blog about Dawlish sometime because his joke of a character is sort of awesome) but I’m sort of not sure if J.K. Rowling has the right to give names to these characters after the fact.  I pretty much feel this way about all the futures of characters after the books as well – I mean, in my head Neville and Luna love each other forever and live happily together in a field of nargles, so why does J.K. Rowling get to discount that by saying that Neville marries Hannah Abbott!  If she really wanted that to be a solid fact of the books she would have included it in the books!

I’m a little befuddled here.  Part of me thinks that J.K. Rowling is totally clever and awesome for her character names, but then part of me is also confused about why she would try to name certain characters after the fact.  I mean, I understand that she’s intensely connected to these characters so it only makes sense for her to imagine their lives outside of what is written, but I’m just surprised that this is something she feels like she has to share with the public.  I don’t know.  It’s just puzzling to me because obviously she stopped consulting an editor about size by the time book four came around so if she really wanted these names to exist, why didn’t she just include them in the books?  I happen to be a fan of most of her name choices after the fact, but I just wish she had actually written them in the books so they could be truly validated.

All right, that last bit was kind of a convoluted rant, but oh well.

Thursday, February 9, 2012

Comparing Harry Potter and Percy Jackson


About a month ago, my sister forced me to read the Percy Jackson and the Olympians series.  Now now, don’t be shocked and appalled that I had to be forced.  I tend to be rather kicking and screaming about reading anything that someone else suggests to me.  I have no idea why I do this.  But I’ve been like this since I was a kid.  Believe it or not, my mom had to force me to read Harry Potter.  I remember that I didn’t want to read it because I had seen a popular girl that I didn’t like reading it on the bus one day.  So naturally my six year old self decided that since that girl was stupid, Harry Potter must also be stupid.  Then of course my mom started reading it to me and I fell instantly in love.  I’ve repeated this process with every single book that I’ve ever loved.  Harry Potter, Ender’s Game, The Hunger Games – I even had my doubts about Looking for Alaska.  But in the end I fell head over heels in love with all of them.  So I guess that I shouldn’t have been surprised that I loved Percy Jackson as much as I did.

A lot of my problem with the idea of the Percy Jackson books was that I had already seen the movie version of The Lightning Thief.  If you’ve seen it, you know that it’s a pretty stupid movie.  My sister HATES that movie with a burning passion, but she told me dozens of times that the book was like “her Harry Potter.”  So I decided to give it a shot.

The funny thing is that while I was reading the books, I wasn’t thinking of Harry Potter at all.  I was so caught up in the clever, modern use of the Greek myths and the endearing, perfect characters that my mind was far from Hogwarts.  But I still know exactly what my sister means by the series being her own Harry Potter– because the Percy Jackson books gave me the same warm fuzzy feeling that Harry Potter has always given me.  No– “warm fuzzy feeling” isn’t really the right way to describe it…it’s more like this heart-wrenching feeling of bittersweet-ness– like you feel so inexplicably full and content but simultaneously distraught that you will never feel the same way again that you feel right at that moment.  You will never feel the effects of that first journey with your favorite characters again.  It’s the best feeling you can get from a work of fiction– this all-encompassing melancholic joy.  That more than anything makes Percy Jackson a worthwhile series.  It makes you feel ALL THE THINGS.

Now that I’ve had some time to reflect on it though, it’s impossible not to see some pretty damn obvious similarities to Harry Potter

First of all there’s the whole three companions thing.  It’s pretty easy to label Percy, Grover, and Annabeth as Harry, Ron, and Hermione.  I mean, seriously, Percy even has black hair and green eyes like Harry.  They’re quite a lot alike in personality as well.  They’re both kind of just stupid, adorable derps who happen to be “the chosen one.”  And then Hermione is “the brightest witch of her age” and Annabeth is a daughter of Athena, praised for her strength in wisdom and knowledge.  There really isn’t much of anything alike about Ron and Grover except for their side-kick-like rolls, but with the similarities between the other guys can you blame people for making the connection?

Then there’s the whole prophecy driven plot.  Bear in mind here that I’m not in any way calling Percy a copycat.  It makes perfect sense for a series with heavy reliance on Greek myths to include prophecies and oracles and things of that nature.  Pretty much all fantasy fiction ends up having a “chosen one.”  That’s just the way it is.

And of course there are a bunch of random similarities like the “Mist” and the inability of Muggles to comprehend what’s going on, Annabeth’s invisibility cap and Harry’s invisibility cloak, how people avoid using the gods' names and how people avoid using Voldemort's name, Rachel Elizabeth Dare being that one awful ginger character messing up your main character’s love life that you just want to go away and Ginny being that one awful ginger character messing up your main character’s love life that you just want to go away… I’m sure there’s a bunch of other stuff I’ve forgotten, but you get the point.  They’re a lot alike.

Unsurprisingly, I’m not the only one who thinks that Harry and Percy have got a lot in common.   In the back of one of the books (I can’t remember which) a reviewer says to “look no further for the next Harry Potter.”  And then looking at movie reviews for The Lightning Thief one day I came across some pretty brutal ones, all calling the movie a failed HP knock off.   Honestly, pretty much every bad review was like “blah blah blah this is trying to be Harry Potter but it’s not blah blah blah…”

Here’s the thing though, Harry and Percy might be a lot alike, BUT the voice of Percy Jackson is something completely unique to its series.  I often have a problem with first person narrators because they tend to be pretty whiny since I’m stuck inside their heads, but everything about Percy’s internal monologue is likeable.  Knowing exactly what’s going on in Percy’s head makes him all the more lovable because he’s never annoying, he’s always believable, and he’s hilarious.  And I feel like because of this there’s something more attractive about the way Percy Jackson is written. 

Now, I’m not saying that I like Percy better, because obviously nothing is ever gonna replace Harry Potter for me.  But there are just sometimes when I’m reading HP and I’m like, “Okay, what the hell could J.K. Rowling possibly mean when she says that Tom the bartender from The Leaky Cauldron looks like a ‘toothless walnut?’”  And yes, that is a direct quote from Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone.  Every once in a while I’ll come across some weird things like this that irritate me.  I’ve never come across anything that’s really awkwardly worded like that in Percy Jackson and I think that’s probably because it’s told from first person.  I’m sure that first person Harry would never call Tom the bartender a “toothless walnut.”  I understand that a lot of those weirdly described instances are just J.K. Rowling being quirky and whimsical and all that.  And believe me, I love the quirky, whimsical shit– it just annoys me when it doesn’t make sense.

Then there’s the whole issue of the maddening narrative structure of Harry Potter.  Like, I’m reading The Prisoner of Azkaban right now and for the first 80 or so pages every single character refers to the dementors as “the Azkaban guards” just for the point of making things more dramatic when they are finally revealed.  As a first time reader, you probably wouldn’t notice that, but if we’re being honest here it just doesn’t make sense for the characters to avoid calling them dementors.  When you’re rereading the series and you already know that they’re called dementors, it’s definitely distracting.  It takes you out of the magical world and brings you back to the real one, reminding you that this is fiction, that there is a plot going on here and that J.K. Rowling is trying to hide vital facts from you for dramatic effect.  On a similar note, WHY DOESN’T HARRY KNOW THAT VOLDEMORT’S FOLLOWERS ARE CALLED DEATH EATERS UNTIL HALFWAY THROUGH THE SERIES!  Death Eaters are referenced constantly in books 1-3 but they don’t get a name until book four.  That’s so stupid!  Same thing goes for the Dark Mark.  Why doesn’t Harry Goddamn Potter know what the symbol of Voldemort looks like until Goblet of Fire?  Alex Carpenter has a pretty excellent video further explaining my feelings on this subject if you want to hear someone describe it more eloquently.

Percy Jackson is pretty good at keeping up the suspense of what’s going to happen next, and Rick Riordan doesn’t have to keep the overarching plot a secret from us throughout the entire series.  From the very beginning we know that there’s a prophecy.  And I’m pretty sure that by book two we know that Percy’s most likely the “chosen one” who’s gotta put Kronos back in his place.  Granted we don’t know everything the prophecy says but it’s better than in Harry Potter where you have to wait until book five to discover the existence of a prophecy at all.  And honestly, didn’t we kind of already know what the prophecy had to say?  Didn’t we already know that Harry had to kill Voldemort?  WHY DID NO ONE TELL HARRY ABOUT THE PROPHECY BEFORE?!  I doubt that it would have shocked him, even as an eleven or twelve year old that he was the one that had to kill Voldemort.  As Hermione often says in book five, he’s got a “saving people thing.”  Obviously he wanted to be the one to kill Voldemort just like HE wanted to be the one to save the Philosopher’s/Sorcerer’s Stone and HE wanted find out who the Heir of Slytherin was.

I love love love love love Harry Potter and I love J.K. Rowling, but I honestly feel like a first person narrator and some revision to the narrative structure could have made it something even more amazing.  Harry Potter has one of the most intricate, detailed, and captivating stories of all time…but I just wish that Harry was present in the same way that Percy was throughout all of his series.