Two questions about Harry Potter from someone who's not read the books

[Bluegill]

I started watching the most recent Harry Potter movie last night (watching half a movie per night is about all I can manage still, with two kids under the age of 2). And some questions re-occurred to me, so I thought I'd ask here, since I know there are quite a few Patter fans on the forum:

1) Does Hogwart's exist in the same physical realm as the muggle world? I mean, are the school and its grounds portrayed in the books as existing in a actual, isolated spot in the UK where muggles won't stumble across it, or is it "removed" somehow to a different dimension or parallel universe?

2) Just what is the Ministry of Magic? Is it a stand-alone governing body for wizards, or does it have actual ties to the British government and some form of guidance from Parliament, the Prime Minister, or the Queen?

Thanks, all!

[ChristineR]

1) It's somewhere in England, but protected by magic spells so that muggles just never go there.

2) The Ministry of Magic is the governing body for all Wizards. It has one tie to the real British government in that the Minister of Magic reports to the Prime Minister. New Prime Ministers are briefed on the magical world situation and then advised to ignore it and let the Ministry of Magic do all the work.

[Tirdun]

The "exists somewhere" extends beyond just Hogwarts. There are whole divisions of government described as hiding certain dangerous magical creatures (eg dragons) or magical areas from muggle eyes.

[hgc]

I've only up to early in the 4th book, so there's a lot of this I don't know either.

Since Wizards are in many other countries too, are a lot of other governments in on it at some level?

[Bluegill]

I appreciate the answers. I don't recall mention of it in the movies, and I didn't know how much was explained in the books.

[ChristineR]

hgc, your question surpasses my Potter knowledge. Logically each country should have its own Ministry of Magic reporting to the appropriate Prime Minister, but I think its pretty clear that there is only one Minister of Magic. I think there were some comments (in Half Blood Prince) about the Prime Minister contacting the President about Voldemort.

[Diamond]

Hogwarts looks like an old ruin to Muggle eyes. The Ministry of Magic contacts the Prime Minister (and only the Prime Minister via an old painting in the Prime Minister's office which is mysteriously welded to the wall....

[brodski]

1) It's somewhere in England, but protected by magic spells so that muggles just never go there.
I always got the impression that Hogwarts wasn't in England, but I don't think it's ever explicitly stated.

[ChristineR]

You get to Hogwart's from London via train, so I figured that put it in Britain at least if not England. But I suppose there could be a magical bridge across the channel. Rowlings mentions the other schools in France and Germany though, and everyone at Hogwart's speaks English.

[brodski]

You get to Hogwart's from London via train, so I figured that put it in Britain at least if not England. But I suppose there could be a magical bridge across the channel. Rowlings mentions the other schools in France and Germany though, and everyone at Hogwart's speaks English.
I always had a feeling that Hogwarts was in Scotland. But I could have dreamed it.

[sesmo_k]

<harry potter geek mode>

In the books, Hogwarts is made unplottable by many enchantments. To non-wizards it appears as a ruined castle. It is located in the British Isles and serves students from the UK and Ireland. AFAIK, Rowling has never stated a precise location, though from inferences in the books, its more likely to be Scotland.

The Ministry of Magic exists to look after magical interest in the UK. Other countries have a similar structures in place. It works just like any other UK Ministry and is therefore inefficient.

</harry potter geek mode>

Please don't laugh at me!:scared: :scared:

[ChristineR]

I guess if she gave a precise location it would be overrun by Muggle tourists. ;)

But I'm a little surprised about the multiple ministries of magic. They seem too big and too powerful relative to the fairly small number of UK wizards. For example, I get the impression that Hogwarts is the only large wizard boarding school in the UK. If so, the population of UK wizards must be a few thousand people.

[sesmo_k]

Hmmm... I am reasonably sure there is more than one Ministry. In book 4, one of the people at the UK ministry was talking about having to find his counterpart from the Bulgarian Ministry. But you are right, to have one ministry for such a few wizards does seem a little strange.

[kevin]

From the attendence of the quidditch world cup I wouldn't guess the population of the wizarding world to be that small. Plus add in the non-wizard people that are aware of the wizard world and it seems to be a fairly large population world wide.

Add in that the world cup shows the wizarding world has just as much national pride as the muggle world and do you really think the Irish wizards would take orders from the English Ministry of Magic?

Hmmm, I wonder if there is a secret UN council for all the various agencies to communicate at.

[brodski]

But you are right, to have one ministry for such a few wizards does seem a little strange. but remember, the MoM provides all the governmental and administrative services for the wizarding community. It acts as Home Office, Foreign office Department for Education, Department for Transport, a prison service &c., as well as providing a whole range of licensing and regulatory services. Frankly I'm surprised that there is only one Ministry in the UK.

I cant believe I'm seriously thinking about this. :boggled:

[Darat]

No one point the "Loose Changers" to this thread!

[brodski]

No one point the "Loose Changers" to this thread! so, you're saying the TEH GLOBALISTS are in fact members of the US Department for Magical Administration? :eye-poppi

It all makes sence now...

[El Greco]

I have only read the first book and I haven't watched any movies, but even this extremely limited knowledge is enough to make me suspect that Rowling has not forethought all these details in advance. I'd be surprised if she even has an outline for the books when she begins them.

[kevin]

I think she knows the end, and as there is only one book left, I think she knew the rough events that would happen in each book to help her get to that end.

I don't think she has a detailed world history or political evaluation of a world with wizards in it (I believe Tolkien had something like that for middle-earth). That is more off the cuff for those details.

[Darat]

She may not have thought out a whole political system but I know for a fact that she did have the story planned out even knowing what events she would be setting in which location and so on.

[hgc]

There's no reason that this ever has to be explained anyway. The relationship between the magic and muggle worlds could fill a whole 'nother 7 books anyway. (You didn't think Rowling was just going to retire after the next one did you?)

[TragicMonkey]

There's no reason that this ever has to be explained anyway. The relationship between the magic and muggle worlds could fill a whole 'nother 7 books anyway. (You didn't think Rowling was just going to retire after the next one did you?)

She's already said that after the Harry Potter series she wants to try something different, for a different audience.

The Erotic Adventures of Ron
Plan Your Wedding the Voldemort Way!
Dummies Guide to Divination
Hermione Has Two Mommies
How The Liberal Menace and Dark Wizards Are Destroying America

[kevin]

There's no reason that this ever has to be explained anyway. The relationship between the magic and muggle worlds could fill a whole 'nother 7 books anyway. (You didn't think Rowling was just going to retire after the next one did you?)

7 was what the original series was planned out at, one for each year at school (and I assume the 7 year school system is typcial for british schools).

No reason she couldn't write more. She could kill Harry off in this book, but I rather doubt that (I have a bet with a friend that I know what happens to Harry at the end)

I expect whe will write more later on without Harry as the main character, but that's just me.

[boooeee]

Okay, somebody explain Quidditch to me then.

This has got to be the stupidest fictional sport ever invented. Calvinball has more logic to its rules. It's as if I added a new rule to baseball in which a player from each opposing team sat in the dugout and thumb-wrestled eachother. Whoever won the thumb wrestling match gets 25 runs, and the game immediately ends.

[hgc]

Okay, somebody explain Quidditch to me then.

This has got to be the stupidest fictional sport ever invented. Calvinball has more logic to its rules. It's as if I added a new rule to baseball in which a player from each opposing team sat in the dugout and thumb-wrestled eachother. Whoever won the thumb wrestling match gets 25 runs, and the game immediately ends.I always thought that was stupid too. I wonder if Rowling wishes she could have a do-over on that one.

[Tirdun]

Okay, somebody explain Quidditch to me then.

I could, but it wouldn't help. The game is illogical, but no more so than some "real" sports. Try explaining US Football in less time than it takes to play a game. Or cricket.

Here's wikipedia's take:
Quidditch is played on a long oval field with three goal hoops on posts at each end. The team that scores the most points wins. There are seven players to a team: one Keeper, two Beaters, three Chasers, and a Seeker. They play with four balls.

The Quaffle is inert and the equivalent to the one ball used in many Muggle games, though it has a charm placed on it so that it slows as it falls and to make it easier to hold. Chasers handle it, trying to throw it through one of the hoops of the opposing team, which is worth ten points. The Keeper guards his or her goal hoops. Two heavy iron balls called Bludgers fly around the field on their own trying to hit players, and the Beaters use bats to defend their team or to hit the Bludgers at the opposing team. Finally, the tiny and winged Golden Snitch darts around at very high speeds and the Seeker attempts to catch it. Doing so scores 150 points and ends the game, generally winning it in the process. A player could still catch the snitch and lose a game for their team should the opposing team lead by more than 150 points.

[Jon.]

I could, but it wouldn't help. The game is illogical, but no more so than some "real" sports. Try explaining US Football in less time than it takes to play a game. Or cricket.

Here's wikipedia's take:

I think the quibble with Quidditch is the disproportionate value of catching the Snitch and the inability for the other team to respond. It unbalances the game and makes goal-scoring distinctly secondary (World Cup result notwithstanding).

[ChristineR]

I think the quibble with Quidditch is the disproportionate value of catching the Snitch and the inability for the other team to respond. It unbalances the game and makes goal-scoring distinctly secondary (World Cup result notwithstanding).

It's a literary device. First of all, it lets Harry be the hero of every game that Snape lets him play. And in the World Cup we get to see the "ringer" that most of us were expecting to show up someday, but probably couldn't involve Harry.

In real life, the rule would probably be changed, but there's another aspect: the balls are magical, and have at least some sort of intelligence to their actions. Hence the snitch always seems to be off the playing field until catching it would have the appropriate dramatic effect.

I've poked around, and the Ministry of Magic is definitely Britain-only. Also, all the hard calculations put Hogwarts at about 300 students, but sometimes Rowlings acts as if there were many more. It seems to be an all or nothing thing, not something that you could resolve just by picking an in-between number. This too is a literary device. There are similtaneously two Wizarding worlds, one of only a few thousand people (in Britain at least), and one much larger. The books switch back and forth at will.

[Tony]

I've poked around, and the Ministry of Magic is definitely Britain-only. Also, all the hard calculations put Hogwarts at about 300 students, but sometimes Rowlings acts as if there were many more. It seems to be an all or nothing thing, not something that you could resolve just by picking an in-between number. This too is a literary device. There are similtaneously two Wizarding worlds, one of only a few thousand people (in Britain at least), and one much larger. The books switch back and forth at will.

Doesn't it also seem like everyone knows each other on a first name basis?

[rjh01]

Rules of Cricket? Simple. When you go out, you are in, when you get out, you go back in.

[pgwenthold]

In real life, the rule would probably be changed,

Or the strategy would be very different. None of this "let's play on and let the seeker handle the snitch" crap. Provided the team isn't behind by more than 100 points, they'd certainly move more people into the catch the snitch hunt. Beaters, for example, would completely ignore the chasers and start beating on the other seeker big time. Let the other team score 5 goals in the meantime, the snitch is too important to leave to one person.

[ChristineR]

Or the strategy would be very different. None of this "let's play on and let the seeker handle the snitch" crap. Provided the team isn't behind by more than 100 points, they'd certainly move more people into the catch the snitch hunt. Beaters, for example, would completely ignore the chasers and start beating on the other seeker big time. Let the other team score 5 goals in the meantime, the snitch is too important to leave to one person.

Indeed, but this is probably when the snitch gets annoyed and flies away for three months. (I believe there is a comment in the first book about a Quidditch game that lasted three months because the snitch vanished.)

[Tirdun]

I do want to assure any cricket lovers that I mean your daft game no disrespect. I'm sure six days watching men run back and forth between tea breaks and sleeping is right jolly fun. I simply don't have days and days to dedicate to a single match that can be called a draw because they eventually ran out of bloody time. I'll just stick to cheering on soccer/football and moto and leave you to it.

In all seriousness I don't understand the game intentionally because I've some UK friends who get quite bent out of shape trying to explain the wonders of cricket to me. They're bound and determined to make me a raving fan, despite my protests. I'll misunderstand every nuance until the day I die.

[kevin]

Or the strategy would be very different. None of this "let's play on and let the seeker handle the snitch" crap. Provided the team isn't behind by more than 100 points, they'd certainly move more people into the catch the snitch hunt. Beaters, for example, would completely ignore the chasers and start beating on the other seeker big time. Let the other team score 5 goals in the meantime, the snitch is too important to leave to one person.

i thought the rule was the seeker was the only person who could catch it, didn't count otherwise.

[pgwenthold]

i thought the rule was the seeker was the only person who could catch it, didn't count otherwise.

But there is nothing in the rules about the beaters going after the other teams seeker to prevent him/her from getting it. My seeker has a much better chance to catch the snitch if the other team's seeker is laying on the ground after catching a bludger upside the head.

[gnome]

Theoretically, if the other team ignored the chasers... it would be relatively easy for them to rack up a 150 point advantage... in which case only their seeker would be chasing the snitch... and the other would have to avoid it... which is, I think, the whole point of trying to score goals.

I agree it's kind of silly though.

[pgwenthold]

Theoretically, if the other team ignored the chasers... it would be relatively easy for them to rack up a 150 point advantage... in which case only their seeker would be chasing the snitch... and the other would have to avoid it... which is, I think, the whole point of trying to score goals.

I agree it's kind of silly though.

But how long does it take to score that many goals? Yeah, Ireland was racking it up against Bulgaria, but there is still a keeper and two other chasers who just need to slow the other team down.

This is why I said that as long as you are within 100, it's probably worth it. If you are too far behind when the snitch appears, yeah you will have to keep your team in on defense and rely on your seeker (see Bulgaria). But if you can keep it close, you certainly can afford to let the opposition have some less-defended goals (kind of like pulling the goalie at the end of a hockey game)

[kevin]

But there is nothing in the rules about the beaters going after the other teams seeker to prevent him/her from getting it. My seeker has a much better chance to catch the snitch if the other team's seeker is laying on the ground after catching a bludger upside the head.

but this is a different strategy that putting all your players out looking for the snitch discussed previously.

The chasers on both sides usually try to tag the seeker, but if you focus too much on it you'll end up leaving your goal open to scores over 100pts, negating the value of the snitch. You gotta keep the potential scorers on the other team on their toes too.

There are a couple of strategies possible in the current game rules (and remember we've never SEEN the rule book, we could be completely wrong about the rules).

- defensive players/offensive seeker. If you have a really good seeker your main players can play defensivly and rely on the seeker to get them 100pts. Keep the other team from scoring is the main objective.

- offensive players/defensive seeker. Your players score fast and furiously. Your seeker's job is to keep the other seeker from catching the snitch (at all, or just too quickly)

[kevin]

I agree it's kind of silly though.

not as silly as us sitting around discussing the ins/outs of quidditch strategy.

[ChristineR]

I've seen the rulebook.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0613329740/sr=8-2/qid=1147952733/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-2975129-7878403?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I didn't bother to pay money for it.:)

[pgwenthold]

but this is a different strategy that putting all your players out looking for the snitch discussed previously.

My first post on the subject

"Provided the team isn't behind by more than 100 points, they'd certainly move more people into the catch the snitch hunt. Beaters, for example, would completely ignore the chasers and start beating on the other seeker big time."

[kevin]

My first post on the subject

"Provided the team isn't behind by more than 100 points, they'd certainly move more people into the catch the snitch hunt. Beaters, for example, would completely ignore the chasers and start beating on the other seeker big time."

bah. reading comprehension is over-rated.

[Jon.]

I've seen the rulebook.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0613329740/sr=8-2/qid=1147952733/ref=pd_bbs_2/002-2975129-7878403?%5Fencoding=UTF8

I didn't bother to pay money for it.:)

I did. :)

It's quite entertaining, actually, and all the proceeds went to Comic Relief (http://www.comicrelief.com/).