• Context - how did what was going on in Jo's real life affect her writing? Were characters or plotlines inspired by what occurred in her life at the time of her writing it?
• Character development/analysis - how did each of Jo's characters develop throughout a single novel? Throughout the pair of books? Analyze the strengths and weaknesses of the characters that you think Jo wants everyone to recognize. What does she want us to learn from those strengths and flaws?
• Plot development - what elements of the story were pertinent to moving the plot along? what elements of the story were more filler/fluff? Describe the major events/people that were introduced early but not recognized as important until later and how Jo got them involved in the storyline in unsuspecting places.
• Themes - What are the universal and fundamental ideas explored in these books? The idea of love being important is just one of many themes to explore!
• Symbolism - What objects, characters, figures, or colors are used to represent abstract ideas or concepts? For example, Harry's scar is not just a scar, but is a connection to his past and his future. Also, a character's name often symbolizes their character (Sirius Black = black dog). Explore these symbols and others!
• Motifs - What are the recurring structures, contrasts, or literary devices that help to develop the text’s major themes? Example: Authority figures - from Vernon Dursley to Dumbledore himself and everyone in between, authority plays an important role in the progression of the story!

Yes Alicia, I agree with you that the characters were designed very cleverly. There are some characters which are just introduced in the first two books that are not meant to be detailed about until later. Sirius Black, for instance, was mentioned in the first chapter but we have no idea anything of his character other than he owns a motorcycle. By including these characters early on but not telling us a lot of information about them, it leads us open to imagination and intrigued, wanting us to read more.

I think I am going to choose to first discuss context:

Most of us have probably heard Jo discussing how her own mother's death from MS really hit her emotionally and actually was part of the reason the books have so much focus on death and loving while you're living. In fact, I think she even elaborated on Harry's loss a bit more than she might have originally had it not been for her needing a way to express the pain she felt.

Also, Jo had a background in education, watching and helping children develop and know themselves. I think her books really attempt to depict the challenges of growing up and also the adventures that only children seem to be willing to take much anymore. Books 1 and 2 attempt to show Harry beginning this journey into finding out who he really is (literally and metaphorically speaking) and becoming an individual, not being defined by his life at the Dursleys or his infamous past, but actually showing who HE is and learning who he is along the way. Just like the children Jo taught, Harry learns who he is and who he wants to be by his interactions with his peers, making friends and learning about loyalty, witnessing lies and deceit and deciding whether or not he wants to live that way.

Hm, I'm not sure... I mean I know about her mother dying of MS, that was really hard on her, it would be for anyone. I think she tried to keep her emotional distance from the books, not wanting them to be too depressing. In the first book she mainly was introducing us to the characters, throwing in a few dramatic things here and there (troll, etc)

And yes I agree with you on something Tiffanie; Jo does have experience with educating youths, so she knew what she was talking about in the beginning of the books. She was trying to show how young kids learn about themselves at a young age, learning how to survive on thier own, kind of thing.

While I agree that I think she tried not to let her emotions control the book, I don't believe it possible for her to completely separate her mother's death from the books. As someone who has lost a parent to an illness, I doubt very much that she would have been successful at not letting her mother's death impact her writing and how she presented certain aspects of the story because I know when my father passed, it played a role in every decision I made afterward in things that you wouldn't necessarily believe related in any way to him or his death. While I agree that Jo didn't want her devastation over her mother's death to make the books depressing, I do believe her mother's death played a huge role in the way she presented death in the story.

A lot of readers can relate to some of the things Harry has been through. When she wrote it, do you think she thought about those people? Obviously, like you'd said, her mother's death may have influenced her ... maybe she thought about it appealing to others, too.

I found the way that Jo dealt with Death in the first book was so matter of fact, maybe that was her way of coming to terms with her mother's death. I think when you lose someone close, you won't really care about how other people have dealt with it, because you own experience is personal and unique. So I don't think when she wrote it,she thought of others, but just her own experience and feelings.

I found that as a "children's book", the way the theme of death was handled in fantastic way of not dwelling on it. There were no tears, no emotion, it was life going on. Maybe in a terrible way, but Harry survived and he wasn't a broken person due to it. I can't think of another book where it is dealt with in this way.

I fully agree with you. In one of the books written about her, she says that she had rewritten bits of the novel after her mother's death. I think she said that harry's experience and feelings towards his parents were a lot like hers at the time.

Well I think that Jo should teach a class on character development. Most authors explain their characters in flashbacks and with their charries own internal thoughts. Dan Brown does this a lot. In Angels and Demons he learn about Robert (the main charrie) through getting into his head and seeing his fears and his hopes and dreams. But with Jo we learned about her character through their actions. It was almost like we grew up with them. I was 19 when I read the first book, but instantly I was transported back to my first day of middle school in the 6th grade right along with Harry just from how he acted. I didn't need a look inside his head to do.

I think Jo just really sat down and said who is Harry Potter. Plainly. He was so well thought out and written in the first book that you instantly felt for him even before he went to Hogwarts. Not just because of his story, but because of him. You have the little background story in the beginning which was enough to whet your whistle, but then the image of a eleven year old boy frying bacon and not burning the house down! Come on who would not want to keep reading what else this boy is going to do.

The same thing can be said about all of her charries. I mean we didn't get any back story on Lee Jordon but I found myself panting for more with him. His commentaries on the Quidditch Matches were more entertaining the the big man himself John Madden!

It felt like her characters could get up and walk off the paper.

I agree, everything is so well thought out, that you have to wonder, if all of this is real. She has this unique style of writing, I have never read a book that is so exact. Everything she describes just fits in. Her characters are so, not perfect. They depict how ordinary people are, bad people, good people, they're just right. You don't see someone being too perfect, you see them just ordinary. That's what I love about the way she writes. You can actually relate to her characters. Like Harry, first searching for Platform 9 3/4, you would actually feel the same way, if it was you. The way she describes every emotion of his, is amazing, it's like she's actually feeling them, and when we read it, we're actually feeling it too.