Hermione Granger and Her Crusade for S.P.E.W.

In the Goblet of Fire, we are introduced to Hermione’s crusade for house-elf rights, the Society for the Promotion of Elfish Welfare (S.P.E.W.), after she witnesses Winky’s mistreatment and learns that house-elves cook and clean at Hogwarts. Not only does house-elf treatment mirror past and current depictions of slavery, but Hermione’s well intentioned yet somewhat misguided plight to support house-elves reminds me of instances when people want to address social issues, but are not well informed about the community they want to serve or the issue they want to address. This can be seen in both the research process and social innovation as well as in ideas designed to help those less fortunate.  


I am part of a research program where identifying the social issue and understanding the audience affected by that issue was emphasized early on. There was one group that wanted to make prosthetic legs for children that grew as they did, but for all their zeal and wonderful ideas, the group had never spoken to a child who needed a prosthetic limb or their parents. The assumptions that the team might have made and the preconceived notions they might have had about that population could have been disastrous in the making (and selling) of their product.

I tend to feel a certain way when people do similar things for those in developing countries, especially African countries. As someone who is Nigerian, I am cognizant of the way the United States (or the western world in general) views the continent of Africa. Those commercials where if you give $20 a month, you can feed a child in Africa, come to mind. African countries are often portrayed as poor nations in need of help and assistance. The media rarely has any positive portrayals of Africa nor is there much widespread discussion about the ways that Africans living in Africa or abroad are already supporting their own communities back home.

Some people who have good intentions may approach solving social issues in Africa without really understanding the audience they want to help- who they are, what they do, the culture and the customs in the area, what they are actually like, what they need and want, and how any solution to be proposed is actually beneficial to them.

world map with ecuador and nigeria

I was especially reminded of this on a recent Alternative Breaks experience to Ecuador where we taught English to students in an indigenous community. Towards the end, our group was thinking about ways that we could continue to work with the community and support them. We had all these ideas about how we could support the students in learning English, but we were reminded by our Staff Advisor that we should not make assumptions about what the school may want or need and that learning English may not even be a priority for them at this point. Even we, who had informed ourselves before the trip and spent a week visiting this school, still had a certain mindset that we knew what may be best for the school.

All of this ties into Hermione’s crusade for house-elf rights. She has witnessed house-elf abuse and knows their enslavement is wrong. At the same time she is trying to impose her ideas (getting paid, taking time off, etc.- things that are relevant to humans) onto the house-elves, without truly understanding their species or their history, what their lives are like or what they think, want, or need. This can be seen in the Goblet of Fire. The house-elves working in the Hogwarts kitchen often seem uncomfortable, upset, or angry when Dobby pronounces his freedom or when Hermione states that house-elves should have similar rights to wizards. There are even times when Dobby does not feel comfortable siding with her and still retains his house-elf mentality (not wanting too much pay, harming himself for speaking badly about the Malfoys). It is also clear that Winky is not pleased with being free and is very upset about it.

(As a side note, I wonder how much of Winky’s distress is due to her dismissal or due to failing to keep Barty Crouch Jr. bound to her, since that was her sole duty and her secret to keep. She was also the one who suggested he be allowed to go to the Quidditch World Cup. I also wonder if she knows what it means for him to be free now. Nevertheless, she does lament that she is not able to take care of Mr. Crouch.)

hermione and house elves in hogwarts.jpg

Of course it is hard to sit here and think, “Well maybe they do like their conditions” since the Hogwarts house-elves do often seem happy to serve, especially since we don’t know what house-elves were doing before wizards enslaved them. Are they truly happy or is it thousands of years of conditioning and brainwashing to believe they are happy? The book never takes a house-elf’s point of view, so we can only speculate on what they think. We also have to consider Winky who was set free- she is emotionally and psychologically distraught and cannot handle not serving the Crouch family. Considering Winky, would it even be beneficial to the elves themselves to set them free? The issue is left hanging at the end of the book, because it is too large to solve in such a short span of time, but it leaves you to wonder. There is no question that house-elves should not be abused or compelled to harm themselves when they make a mistake, but considering what we have seen so far, it seems like Hermione has a lot more learning to do before S.P.E.W becomes a fully fleshed out organization.



Incompetence in the Wizarding World

Just a heads up; this will be a long post.

One thing I liked when first reading Harry Potter was how quirky and whimsical the Wizarding World was. It wasn’t as structured or as formal as our world can be at times. Things like having spells that tickle you, producing Cheering Charms, dressing in mismatched ways to try and replicate Muggle clothing, and having a casual disregard for some of the danger involved in Quidditch (like referees disappearing during a match and showing up a few months later) were funny to read the first time around. But now upon rereading the books, especially Goblet and Fire and after, and considering discussions in class, it is more obvious that there is plenty of incompetence and disregard mixed with corruption in the Wizarding World.

Considering mild incompetence, it is one thing to have wizards dress so sloppily when trying to imitate Muggles. You would think they would be more observant or have a select group of people who disseminate this information. On a more severe note, it is clear that the Quidditch World Cup is not very well planned. This was brought to my attention when reading Tor.com– Emily Asher-Perrin mentions that there clearly isn’t any kind of emergency protocol in case something goes wrong at the Quidditch World Cup. Unlike with major sports games in the Muggle world, there doesn’t seem to be any form of security or strict adherence to rules at the campsite (this is probably enhanced with Ludo Bagman being in charge). Nothing prevents families from building huge tents that are obviously unlike Muggle tents, people from performing magic out in the open, or Death Eaters and rowdy fan from harassing the Robertses. The Wizarding World doesn’t seem to have the equivalent of police officers or security officials- they mainly rely on Ministry of Magic employees to be on duty. I don’t know if the Ministry of Magic had too few people to staff, but it seems silly that the body that organized the entire event didn’t have any procedure to manage chaos. Maybe they assume that if anything goes wrong, they can just fix it with magic?

quidditch world cup riot

As I mentioned before, they are either very lax or extreme with punishments. Oftentimes punishments don’t seem to fit the crime. For example, in the Sorcerer’s Stone, the children had detention in the Forbidden Forest, which is forbidden and dangerous, to look for what was killing unicorns, all because they were out after hours. At school, there is also no handling of bullying. I don’t know if these parts in the book are a product of J.K.Rowling’s upbringing at school or before the era when addressing bullying became a more serious issue, but it is awful the way that students and teachers bully students. Snape insults Hermione in the Goblet of Fire when her teeth were enlarging and says he sees no difference in her appearance and calls her an insufferable know-it-all in Prisoner of Azkaban; Draco casually says Mudblood, which I assume is the equivalent of a racial slur, out loud regularly; and Snape is often extremely unfair to Harry at times. We also don’t hear about any punishments after the episode with the Roberts’- just that the Ministry screwed up and no one was arrested.

Finally, I feel that corruption and subverting the legal system should be another blog post of its own, but it is something that is pretty prominent and doesn’t seem to have many ramifications. Our professor mentioned in class that the Ministry of Magic tends to look for the quickest, easiest, most plausible answer when they are trying to solve a crime or accuse someone. They don’t seem keen to ask hard questions or doing lengthy investigations like we would even for small things. There is some jumping to conclusions and anyone in power can decide justice in their own way at times.  

This is very prominent when the Dark Mark is conjured at the World cup. Amos Diggory quickly implicates Harry and Winky in the conjuring even though they are clearly two of the most unlikely people to have done it. This made me think, if Amos was so quick to jump to conclusions now, then it truly gives you a glimpse into what life must have been like back during the first Wizarding War. How quickly did people accuse their friends or family members of cavorting with the Death Eaters or engaging with the Dark side? How mistrustful did they become of others who they were once close to? We saw in the Prisoner of Azkaban that both Lupin and Sirius thought the other was on Voldemort’s side when we know that they were best friends.

Another issue I have with the Wizarding World is their application of the law and how they detect fraud to prevent falsely implicating a person. If someone steals your wand and casts one of the Unforgivable Curses, and you end up back with that wand, how do you show that someone stole it and you didn’t cast the curses, especially if it’s known that this is something that could happen? Or how do you distinguish if someone was under the Imperius Curse vs willingly committing acts for the Dark side. You only have that person’s word to go off of. There are just too many holes here that are not adequately addressed. Our professor did mention that, in general, the ideal percentage of full world construction should be about 80%. Any less then there are too many holes, and any more then there is not enough room for readers to use their imagination. But if the Wizarding World doesn’t have a set structure or enough competence to think rationally and handle something as simple as who conjured the Dark Mark, it is no wonder that innocent people were killed or placed in Azkaban and those who are actually committing deeds walked free after Voldemort’s disappearance.


I feel that their seemingly harmless incompetence combined with a casual disregard for rules or the law and somewhat lax punishment had/has/and will severely affect(ed) the way that they handle justice and punishments. However, I believe all of this also has a purpose in the transition that the fourth books serves. It is no longer fun and games. Things are serious now and we slowly start to see the more negative aspects of the Wizarding World coming out from under the rug and how these influence the rest of the story.

Image credits:

Using a Meme for Literary Analysis

This week in class, we discussed chapters 6-11 of the Prisoner of Azkaban and did something like a free for all for discussing our thoughts about these chapters. We also read our professor’s essay from the book, Transforming Harry: The Adaptation of Harry Potter in the Transmedia Age, which analyzed using memes for literary analysis. At the end of class on Tuesday, we were tasked with creating a meme based on what we had read about in chapters 6-11. I remember mentioning McGonagall’s snark towards Professor Trelawney in this part of the book, which seems so out of character, since you usually see her as a respectable, fierce, stern, no-nonsense professor, and she often reserves these kinds of remarks for students. But it is obvious that her opinions line up with Hermione’s when it comes to Divination and Professor Trelawney, but she can’t be as openly outspoken about it as a professor as Hermione can as a student. For example, take this passage (pg 229):  

“Certainly I knew, Minerva,” she said quietly. “But one does not parade the fact that one is All-Knowing. I frequently act as though I am not possessed of the Inner Eye, so as not to make others nervous.”

“That explains a great deal,” said Professor McGonagall tartly.

There are other instances like this throughout the book. It was these interactions upon which I based my meme:

my meme!!!!!!!!

This meme serves as a form of literary analysis because it provides insight into Professor McGonagall’s character, Professor Trelawney’s character, and intra-fandom conflict.

  • McGonagall’s characterization:
    • As I mentioned above, there are parallels between McGonagall and Hermione’s characters in terms of their distrust of Divination as a subject. They are also both very intelligent, level-headed, and loyal. Another parallel exists in that both of them were Hatstalls, where the Sorting Hat debated for around 5 minutes about whether to put them in Ravenclaw or Gryffindor (1).
    • As I mentioned above, these her comments show a more sassy low-tolerance side of Professor McGonagall for things she considers nonsensical. However, even though she says these snide remarks in Prisoner of Azkaban, when Professor Trelawney is almost ousted by Dolores Umbridge in the Order of the Phoenix, Professor McGonagall does come to her defense and helps to comfort her afterwards. It is said that McGonagall “sensed [Professor Trelawney’s] underlying feeling of inadequacy (2).”  
  • Trelawney as a true Seeker:
    • There is a lot of question surrounding Professor Trelawney about whether she truly possesses the Inner Eye and can predict true prophecies. Throughout this book and the next few she makes a series based on very vague predictions that can later be said to have come true (i.e. Lavender “dreading” the death of her rabbit). She is also very observant which may explain why many of her vague predictions seem to come true (i.e. Neville breaking a tea cup; but she probably sensed his nervousness and clumsiness from when he came in).
    • However, she was the one who accurately predicted the Prophecy between Voldemort and Harry, Peter Pettigrew returning to Voldemort, and Dumbledore’s death (3). None of these could have been be predicted by simple observation or vague statements.
  • Intra-fandom conflicts:
    • Professor McGonagall viewing Trelawney as a fraud also relates to conflicting views about true fans in a fandom.
    • There is sometimes debate about what constitutes a “true” Harry Potter fan. Some may claim that to really be a Harry Potter fan, you need to have read/listened to all the books, and that those who have only watched the movies are not true fans because they didn’t start from the quote-unquote beginning.
    • This plays on the distrust between certain levels of a fandom- i.e. how much of it have you truly experienced, which of course is subjective. Even I have the opinion that a person needs to have read the books to fully have experienced the series and be a Sirius (haha- see what I did there?) fan. If you are interested WikiHow has an article titled How to Be a Harry Potter Fan.
    • Each fan of the series will have a different experience whether they read the books first or watched the movies first or experienced it through friends, memes, or websites. But just as the end of this Bustle article states, anyone who can appreciate the series is a fan regardless of how many times they have read the books.

The meme could probably be improved, or at least fit the standard format, by just having the image of McGonagall with the words at the bottom. You would still be able to have the analysis about intra-fandom conflict and perhaps McGonagalls characterization; however, you would not be able to analyze Professor Trelawney’s character and ability as a Seer. Nor could you analyze the relationships between Professor McGonagall and Professor Trelawney.

mcgonagall meme


  1. https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/hatstall
  2. https://www.pottermore.com/writing-by-jk-rowling/sybill-trelawney
  3. https://www.pottermore.com/features/7-times-professor-trelawney-got-it-right

A Brief Discussion of Adaptation Theory

This week in class, we finished up the Chamber of Secrets and the rest of our reading on Adaptation Theory. We also started Prisoner of Azkaban as well as some readings on Fandom Theory. I will focus on Adaptation Theory for this post. Adaptation theory is involved studying adaptations of different media forms (i.e. books, movies, theme parks, comics, etc.) into other media forms, looking at the process and what needs to be considered when transforming media, understanding why the adaptation is created, and determining whether it is successful or not. The quote that I think really represents the essence of adaptation is “Repetition without replication (1).”

Something our professor mentioned a few weeks ago at the end of class was that people tend to think of adaptations in terms of how well they match the original form. But asking whether an adaptation is good or bad based solely on that criteria turns this into a “yes” or “no” question. Instead, she suggests, we should focus on adaptations in terms of how well they convey/portray the overall story. Currently, I am trying to keep this in mind as I reread the books. watch the films, and consider other adaptations that have been created.

adaptations graphic

There are some things that a certain adaptation can portray that a different form of media cannot. A simple example is book to film. With a book, you can choose what you want to read, who you want to focus on, and what part of the story you want to be engaged in. On the other hand, with film, the camera and the director tell you what you should focus on and who you should pay attention to. Even though this seems restrictive, film also allows plenty of flexibility in terms of interpretation and creation of different aspects of the book. When reading, you have in your own mind what something might look like, but with film you have an actual visual.

On the flip side, film can also cut out or switch around parts of a book that a person may have enjoyed but may not have been important to the story or was difficult to incorporate. For the Sorcerer’s Stone novel, J.K. Rowling wrote the parts in book where the trio meet Norbert with Hagrid twice, Draco sees them, and Harry and Hermione take Norbert up to Charlie which lands them in detention in the Forbidden Forest. However, in the movie, it was condensed to Draco seeing Norbert and the trio in Hagrid’s hut at night, then cut to where Harry, Hermione, Ron, and Draco go into the Forbidden Forest and there is just a brief mention by Hagrid of Norbert being taken away to Romania. That was obviously cut for time. On the other hand, replacing Neville with Ron in the movie made sense in terms of continuity and keeping the trio together. Neville is not a huge character in the book and is less so in the movie, so for people who haven’t read the books it would make sense to use Ron instead.  

But not every filmmaking choice is superb. I remembered at the end of the Chamber of Secrets film when Harry meets Tom Riddle in the Chamber that the camera kept spinning in a circle with Tom Riddle as he spoke; at first I thought that seemed confrontational (i.e. Harry and Tom circling each other), but it was kind of dizzying. Then there is the scene at the end where Hagrid comes back, and all the children are super excited to see him, they circle him, and Harry says something like, “There’s no Hogwarts without you Hagrid.” I thought that was really weird. At first because it didn’t happen in the book, but later on because I never really felt that sentiment at all in the book or in the movie. It really just seems like only the trio are fond of Hagrid and there is no reason for him to have gotten such a huge response upon returning to Hogwarts.

Hagrid chamber of secrets

On Thursday, our professor tasked us with looking at the first chapter of Prisoner of Azkaban which uses six external texts that are not narration and determining how we would turn this chapter into an adaptation that didn’t include reading the text. The idea I had was of an interactive version of Harry’s bedroom with each significant item mentioned in a letter/with a letter around the room. For example you could pick up the Sneakoscope and Ron’s voice would come on speaking what he wrote in the letter; or you pick up (or not) the Monster Book of Monsters and Hagrid’s voice would play. This could be online, in a video game, or even in person. Though it is a creative idea, the context and experience would change depending on whether it is online or in person. It is also limited in the context of the series, unless interacting with a certain object in the room would give you more information about how that object comes into play in the rest of the book or in the series.

I would have been interested in hearing about what other groups discussed as well because I did overhear someone talking about a photo collage which sounded intriguing.

(1) Hutcheon, L. (2012). A theory of Adaptation. Routledge.

Image credits: https://www.tor.com/2014/08/07/the-harry-potter-reread-rewatching-the-chamber-of-secrets/

Who Remembers Ginny from Chamber of Secrets?

This week in class, we discussed Chapters 6-12 of Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets. On Tuesday we did some film analysis and on Thursday we briefly talked about Adaptation Theory. On Thursday, we also split up into our individual houses (go Hufflepuff!) and discussed plot development, character development, world building, and foreshadowing in Chamber of Secrets.

Something I really thought about this week was the amount of foreshadowing and plot development that keeps you interested in the story. First, there are so many red herrings:

  1. Harry: with every successive reveal or bad thing that happens to Harry in the book, it seems more and more likely that he is the Heir of Slytherin- his ability to speak parselmouth, hearing the Basilisk, almost being sorted into Slytherin, and always seeming to be where trouble is. It’s only in the last chapter that you learn about Voldemort’s connection with Harry through his scar. Even when I reread the book, I get so worried whenever he is found at the scene of the crime, especially when he finds the petrified forms of Justin Finch-Fletchley and Nearly Headless Nick.
  2. Draco: you (or at least I) already don’t like Draco, so of course someone who casually uses the insult Mudblood in everyday speech, is always talking about how great pure-bloods are, and is very hostile (at least in words) towards Muggle born wizards and half-bloods seems like he should be the Heir.
  3. Hagrid: personally, this red herring is the least convincing, mostly because of everything you know about Hagrid up to this point. But at the very least, it is a way for the reader to get more insight into Hagrid’s past, and shows that his love for large, somewhat dangerous, creatures is not new.

Second, I think that compared to the first and third book, a lot of the foreshadowing seems so in your face, but it’s only when you go back and reread Chamber of Secrets that you realize all the clues were right there. Our professor did state in class this week that the books reward you for reading carefully, and I think Chamber of Secrets is a great example of that. Of course, it would be difficult to pay attention to all of the little details on a first read because you don’t know which ones are important now versus much later on in the series, or maybe not at all.

I remember being so shocked that Ginny was being controlled by Lord Voldemort because it is the least obvious of all the clues. Out of all of the other bits of foreshadowing that hint that the monster is a Basilisk- namely the dead roosters and the spiders- and the explanations for why everyone was petrified as opposed to killed- the reflection in the water, through a mirror, and through a ghost- you never really pay much attention to Ginny. I reread Chamber of Secrets over the summer and I still tend to miss or overlook the parts where Ginny looks pale or worried because it’s the least peculiar and strange thing that happens in all of the book. In my mind, she is just a first year adjusting to school and she is worried about all the petrifications and the monster lurking in the school.

Image result for chamber of secrets ginny weasley

In the first book, you get one major red herring in Harry believing that Snape is trying to harm him. Even reading the book and looking back on conversations between Snape and Quirrell, it doesn’t stick out as much as the clues in this book. In the third book, there are really no clues that Sirius is anything but a murder, and in the reread, now that you have that knowledge, you can leave your mind free to think about some other themes in the book like mass hysteria, how firmly beliefs can be held, and public perceptions vs the truth.

On an unrelated note, something that I only wondered now was: why did J.K. Rowling decide that the entrance to the Chamber of Secrets would be in a girls bathroom? I asked my fellow Hufflepuffs, and the only convincing thing we could think of was that that is the least obvious place for it to be. After having read about it on Pottermore, J.K. Rowling states:

“When first created, the Chamber was accessed through a concealed trapdoor and a series of magical tunnels. However, when Hogwarts’ plumbing became more elaborate in the eighteenth century… the entrance to the Chamber was threatened, being located on the site of a proposed bathroom. The presence in school at the time of a student called Corvinus Gaunt – direct descendant of Slytherin, and antecedent of Tom Riddle – explains how the simple trapdoor was secretly protected, so that those who knew how could still access the entrance to the Chamber even after newfangled plumbing had been placed on top of it.”

So there we have it, the girls bathroom was just built on top of it. I wonder what Salazar would have thought.

Image credits:



Social Structure in Harry Potter

This week we looked at aspects of the Harry Potter books through the lens of various literary methods of criticism. We also looked as aspects of film analysis after reading the first chapter of Reading in the Dark by John Golden. I am going to focus more on the literary criticism for this post.

There are many schools of literary criticism include Formalism, Destructive and Post-Structuralist, Feminist (Gender Studies), Biographical, Psychological, and Marxist. You can read more about them here. One of the schools of thought that I reflected on in class this week was the Marxist Criticism, which looks at the role of class, race, and social structure on a plot.

As a related aside, I remember there was once a time where I kept relating things happening in the world to events in Harry Potter and vice versa. This just goes to show how relevant, complex, and layered a world and story J.K. Rowling constructed. Looking through the lens of Marxism Criticism, my opinion is no different because there are many layers to the social stratification of the Wizarding World and these affect the unfolding story.

There are human wizards who, it is implied, are at the top of the social order, especially since they are the ones who create rules governing other magical creatures. There are various points throughout the series where wizards are portrayed as superior to other magical creatures- i.e. with the fountain in the Ministry of Magic and derisive comments towards people who are half-humans like Hagrid and Lupin. But even within wizards, there is more social stratification. There are “pure-blood” wizards (some of whom think they are superior as a result), half-blood wizards, Muggle born wizards, and Squibs. In an ideal world, everyone human who is a part of the Wizarding World is a human. But some of the pomposity and superiority of pure-blood wizards, as well as some of the negative opinions/treatment of half-blood or Muggle born wizards (especially with use of the slur Mudblood; and even though it is made up, it continues to feel more like a word I shouldn’t say) is reminiscent of real-life opinions like white-supremacy, racial discrimination, and the like. Blood status is essentially the Wizarding World’s version of race.

However, the Wizarding World also introduces other classifications within the social structure because there are non-human and part-human creatures and people, who also represent the lower-class levels of society, based on the rights given to them and their treatment from wizards. There is no equivalent of part-human or non-human creatures and people in real life, but some of the restrictions leveled against goblins, giants, house-elves, centaurs, and other human-like non-humans are reminiscent of discrimination towards different groups or classes of people.

Even the distinction between wizards and other part-human or non-human creatures reminds me of an “Us” and “Them” mentality that exists between the Western world and other developing countries. Even though the “Them” can govern themselves, the “Us” also has some level of control over some of the freedoms afforded them. Or they may be responsible for some of the issues the other classes are having (i.e. I doubt that, at the beginning of Wizard history, house-elves wanted to slaves to wizards).

In addition, it also makes you wonder what justifications wizards use to maintain this social structure and what, if anything, is done to reduce the amount of discrimination and lack of rights within the social order. Because the thing is, even though non-human creatures are non-human, some of them have human-like thoughts and instincts and speak human languages. So if you can talk to a goblin or elf like you are talking to a human, should they be allowed similar rights as humans? Given the Ministry of Magic Department for the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures, it doesn’t seem as though there is any organization on the level of S.P.E.W. to advocate for the rights of any creatures. It is also implied that wizards just see them as creatures, so already in wizard minds they are “less than”.

Frankly, I continue to find it interesting that some of wizard-kind think less of goblins (they seem to respect goblin craftsmanship, but not goblins themselves) and they don’t have similar rights to wizards, especially since goblins control all their money in Gringotts. (Maybe that’s what all those goblin rebellions were about?)

There are differences in socio-economic status, but unlike in the real world, there doesn’t seem to be an correlation between race and socioeconomic status. These kinds of social structures would of course have implications as the Second Wizarding War approaches as non-wizard magical creatures may choose a side to fight with.

In a way, it is good that Harry isn’t aware of these prejudices entering the Wizarding World. So many people who were allies to to him may not have been if did subject to these prejudices and associate with people who strongly held them. He doesn’t dismiss Dobby or justify his slavery the way that Ron does. In fact his first response to hearing that Dobby is a slave is “‘Can’t anyone help you? Can’t I?'” He doesn’t recoil in disgust at Lupin and Hagrid, he doesn’t seek to own goblin-made objects, he doesn’t seek to restrict the rights of certain part-humans or non-human creatures. But these social structures do exist and influence his perceptions of the Wizarding World.

Until next week,


Welcome to A Deep Dive

Hello, world!

Welcome to my blog! On this blog, I will be analyzing various aspects of the Harry Potter books and their adaptations through a critical lens, based on discussions that I am having in a seminar at my university. I am taking a seminar titled The Boy Who Lived, All Grown Up: Assessing the Harry Potter Books and their Adaptations. In this class, we will be discussing the Harry Potter novels, looking at them through a critical lens as opposed to just for entertainment, and assessing the numerous adaptations surrounding the series.

I am excited to take this journey. I have a feeling this will be one of my favorite college courses. I will be posting at the end of each week based on topics that we have discussed during the week.

So, I invite you to hop on the Hogwarts Express with me as we journey our way through the countryside of the books, movies, plays, music, theme parks, what have you, and more!

Image credit: https://mashable.com/2013/11/02/harry-potter-minimalist-posters/#y9Ym32zeoZql