Why did J. K. Rowling choose to downplay dragons?











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Where ever I see dragons in fantasy works, they are portrayed as very powerful creatures. They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages. Even powerful kingdoms avoid them at all costs. The Hobbit (and, other Tolkien's works) and Game of Thrones are immediately in my mind.



But, in Harry Potter, even school kids could defeat a dragon. Yeah, they are powerful, but not powerful enough to be feared by entire wizarding world.



Why did J. K. Rowling choose to downplay dragons? Has she ever mention anything about it?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    "They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages." You haven't read the Natural History of Dragons by Lady Trent series authored by Marie Brennan, then. :)
    – Lexible
    3 hours ago















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Where ever I see dragons in fantasy works, they are portrayed as very powerful creatures. They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages. Even powerful kingdoms avoid them at all costs. The Hobbit (and, other Tolkien's works) and Game of Thrones are immediately in my mind.



But, in Harry Potter, even school kids could defeat a dragon. Yeah, they are powerful, but not powerful enough to be feared by entire wizarding world.



Why did J. K. Rowling choose to downplay dragons? Has she ever mention anything about it?










share|improve this question


















  • 1




    "They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages." You haven't read the Natural History of Dragons by Lady Trent series authored by Marie Brennan, then. :)
    – Lexible
    3 hours ago













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Where ever I see dragons in fantasy works, they are portrayed as very powerful creatures. They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages. Even powerful kingdoms avoid them at all costs. The Hobbit (and, other Tolkien's works) and Game of Thrones are immediately in my mind.



But, in Harry Potter, even school kids could defeat a dragon. Yeah, they are powerful, but not powerful enough to be feared by entire wizarding world.



Why did J. K. Rowling choose to downplay dragons? Has she ever mention anything about it?










share|improve this question













Where ever I see dragons in fantasy works, they are portrayed as very powerful creatures. They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages. Even powerful kingdoms avoid them at all costs. The Hobbit (and, other Tolkien's works) and Game of Thrones are immediately in my mind.



But, in Harry Potter, even school kids could defeat a dragon. Yeah, they are powerful, but not powerful enough to be feared by entire wizarding world.



Why did J. K. Rowling choose to downplay dragons? Has she ever mention anything about it?







harry-potter






share|improve this question













share|improve this question











share|improve this question




share|improve this question










asked 3 hours ago









Endgame

54.6k90412813




54.6k90412813








  • 1




    "They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages." You haven't read the Natural History of Dragons by Lady Trent series authored by Marie Brennan, then. :)
    – Lexible
    3 hours ago














  • 1




    "They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages." You haven't read the Natural History of Dragons by Lady Trent series authored by Marie Brennan, then. :)
    – Lexible
    3 hours ago








1




1




"They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages." You haven't read the Natural History of Dragons by Lady Trent series authored by Marie Brennan, then. :)
– Lexible
3 hours ago




"They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages." You haven't read the Natural History of Dragons by Lady Trent series authored by Marie Brennan, then. :)
– Lexible
3 hours ago










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
5
down vote













Dragons in Harry Potter are indeed powerful.



Though it’s true that dragons were used in one of the tasks of the Triwizard Tournament competed in by schoolchildren, dragons were shown to be powerful creatures. The task wasn’t actually to defeat a dragon, just to retrieve an egg guarded by one. To defeat a dragon, Sirius Black says would need about six wizards working together.




“There’s a way, Harry. Don’t be tempted to try a Stunning Spell – dragons are strong and too powerfully magical to be knocked out by a single Stunner. You need about half-a-dozen wizards at a time to overcome a dragon –”
- Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 19 (The Hungarian Horntail)




Dragons are also classified as XXXXX, the highest of the Ministry’s danger classifications, which means known wizard killer/impossible to train or domesticate.




“DRAGON

M.O.M. Classification: XXXXX



Probably the most famous of all magical beasts, dragons are among the most difficult to hide. The female is generally larger and more aggressive than the male, though neither should be approached by any but highly skilled and trained wizards.”
- Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them




Though dragons may be portrayed as stronger in other works, they’re not portrayed as weak in the Harry Potter series. As for why they’re not portrayed as even more powerful, that may be because dragons aren’t as large a part of the story as they are in other works.






share|improve this answer




























    up vote
    3
    down vote













    She didn't choose to violate genre conventions. She doesn't read fantasy in the first place, and Harry Potter wasn't intended as a (high) fantasy.



    In an interview with The New York Times, J. K. Rowling said the following:




    Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?



    “Can’t be bothered with” isn’t a phrase I’d use, because my reading tastes are pretty catholic [lowercase in original]. I don’t read “chick lit,” fantasy or science fiction but I’ll give any book a chance if it’s lying there and I’ve got half an hour to kill.[...]




    She also didn't consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone a work of fantasy until after she'd written it. Another answer to the linked question contains numerous additional quotations indicating that Rowling doesn't like or read fantasy, so I'm going to consider that a well-established fact.



    Given that Rowling does not read fantasy, we have to interpret Harry Potter in the broader context of English literature rather than as an intentional work of high fantasy. Comparisons with The Hobbit and other works in Tolkien's legendarium are particularly inapt, because those works spawned a literary and cultural canon which Rowling has intentionally avoided.



    Dragons are, of course, fearsome creatures. But there is also a longstanding tradition, far older than Tolkien, of individual knights slaying them. Probably the earliest surviving example which can be called "English" in any sense is Beowulf, but of course there are numerous more modern examples. The dragons used in the Triwizard Tournament are a continuation of that literary trope. The "knights" are schoolchildren because the protagonists are schoolchildren. Finally, they didn't actually slay the dragons. They just had to retrieve an egg.



    Turning to broader genre differences, it's clear that Rowling was intent on writing a "civilized" world, in which humans have a substantial level of control over magic. The dragons (and various other magical creatures) are kept as pets. The elves are enslaved. The goblins once rebelled, but now they merely run the economy. Why? Because Rowling was not writing a fantasy in which "anything can happen." She was writing a boarding school story which just so happened to be set in a magical environment. Boarding school stories can have a substantial level of mischief (think of Harry and company sneaking around with the invisibility cloak), but a common baseline assumption is that the school is mostly safe and mostly a civilized environment, in which children need only moderate adult supervision.






    share|improve this answer























    • I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
      – Adamant
      2 hours ago












    • @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
      – Kevin
      2 hours ago












    • Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
      – ruakh
      57 secs ago











    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "186"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    convertImagesToLinks: false,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: null,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200018%2fwhy-did-j-k-rowling-choose-to-downplay-dragons%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    5
    down vote













    Dragons in Harry Potter are indeed powerful.



    Though it’s true that dragons were used in one of the tasks of the Triwizard Tournament competed in by schoolchildren, dragons were shown to be powerful creatures. The task wasn’t actually to defeat a dragon, just to retrieve an egg guarded by one. To defeat a dragon, Sirius Black says would need about six wizards working together.




    “There’s a way, Harry. Don’t be tempted to try a Stunning Spell – dragons are strong and too powerfully magical to be knocked out by a single Stunner. You need about half-a-dozen wizards at a time to overcome a dragon –”
    - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 19 (The Hungarian Horntail)




    Dragons are also classified as XXXXX, the highest of the Ministry’s danger classifications, which means known wizard killer/impossible to train or domesticate.




    “DRAGON

    M.O.M. Classification: XXXXX



    Probably the most famous of all magical beasts, dragons are among the most difficult to hide. The female is generally larger and more aggressive than the male, though neither should be approached by any but highly skilled and trained wizards.”
    - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them




    Though dragons may be portrayed as stronger in other works, they’re not portrayed as weak in the Harry Potter series. As for why they’re not portrayed as even more powerful, that may be because dragons aren’t as large a part of the story as they are in other works.






    share|improve this answer

























      up vote
      5
      down vote













      Dragons in Harry Potter are indeed powerful.



      Though it’s true that dragons were used in one of the tasks of the Triwizard Tournament competed in by schoolchildren, dragons were shown to be powerful creatures. The task wasn’t actually to defeat a dragon, just to retrieve an egg guarded by one. To defeat a dragon, Sirius Black says would need about six wizards working together.




      “There’s a way, Harry. Don’t be tempted to try a Stunning Spell – dragons are strong and too powerfully magical to be knocked out by a single Stunner. You need about half-a-dozen wizards at a time to overcome a dragon –”
      - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 19 (The Hungarian Horntail)




      Dragons are also classified as XXXXX, the highest of the Ministry’s danger classifications, which means known wizard killer/impossible to train or domesticate.




      “DRAGON

      M.O.M. Classification: XXXXX



      Probably the most famous of all magical beasts, dragons are among the most difficult to hide. The female is generally larger and more aggressive than the male, though neither should be approached by any but highly skilled and trained wizards.”
      - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them




      Though dragons may be portrayed as stronger in other works, they’re not portrayed as weak in the Harry Potter series. As for why they’re not portrayed as even more powerful, that may be because dragons aren’t as large a part of the story as they are in other works.






      share|improve this answer























        up vote
        5
        down vote










        up vote
        5
        down vote









        Dragons in Harry Potter are indeed powerful.



        Though it’s true that dragons were used in one of the tasks of the Triwizard Tournament competed in by schoolchildren, dragons were shown to be powerful creatures. The task wasn’t actually to defeat a dragon, just to retrieve an egg guarded by one. To defeat a dragon, Sirius Black says would need about six wizards working together.




        “There’s a way, Harry. Don’t be tempted to try a Stunning Spell – dragons are strong and too powerfully magical to be knocked out by a single Stunner. You need about half-a-dozen wizards at a time to overcome a dragon –”
        - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 19 (The Hungarian Horntail)




        Dragons are also classified as XXXXX, the highest of the Ministry’s danger classifications, which means known wizard killer/impossible to train or domesticate.




        “DRAGON

        M.O.M. Classification: XXXXX



        Probably the most famous of all magical beasts, dragons are among the most difficult to hide. The female is generally larger and more aggressive than the male, though neither should be approached by any but highly skilled and trained wizards.”
        - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them




        Though dragons may be portrayed as stronger in other works, they’re not portrayed as weak in the Harry Potter series. As for why they’re not portrayed as even more powerful, that may be because dragons aren’t as large a part of the story as they are in other works.






        share|improve this answer












        Dragons in Harry Potter are indeed powerful.



        Though it’s true that dragons were used in one of the tasks of the Triwizard Tournament competed in by schoolchildren, dragons were shown to be powerful creatures. The task wasn’t actually to defeat a dragon, just to retrieve an egg guarded by one. To defeat a dragon, Sirius Black says would need about six wizards working together.




        “There’s a way, Harry. Don’t be tempted to try a Stunning Spell – dragons are strong and too powerfully magical to be knocked out by a single Stunner. You need about half-a-dozen wizards at a time to overcome a dragon –”
        - Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire, Chapter 19 (The Hungarian Horntail)




        Dragons are also classified as XXXXX, the highest of the Ministry’s danger classifications, which means known wizard killer/impossible to train or domesticate.




        “DRAGON

        M.O.M. Classification: XXXXX



        Probably the most famous of all magical beasts, dragons are among the most difficult to hide. The female is generally larger and more aggressive than the male, though neither should be approached by any but highly skilled and trained wizards.”
        - Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them




        Though dragons may be portrayed as stronger in other works, they’re not portrayed as weak in the Harry Potter series. As for why they’re not portrayed as even more powerful, that may be because dragons aren’t as large a part of the story as they are in other works.







        share|improve this answer












        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer










        answered 3 hours ago









        Bellatrix

        67.6k11305341




        67.6k11305341
























            up vote
            3
            down vote













            She didn't choose to violate genre conventions. She doesn't read fantasy in the first place, and Harry Potter wasn't intended as a (high) fantasy.



            In an interview with The New York Times, J. K. Rowling said the following:




            Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?



            “Can’t be bothered with” isn’t a phrase I’d use, because my reading tastes are pretty catholic [lowercase in original]. I don’t read “chick lit,” fantasy or science fiction but I’ll give any book a chance if it’s lying there and I’ve got half an hour to kill.[...]




            She also didn't consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone a work of fantasy until after she'd written it. Another answer to the linked question contains numerous additional quotations indicating that Rowling doesn't like or read fantasy, so I'm going to consider that a well-established fact.



            Given that Rowling does not read fantasy, we have to interpret Harry Potter in the broader context of English literature rather than as an intentional work of high fantasy. Comparisons with The Hobbit and other works in Tolkien's legendarium are particularly inapt, because those works spawned a literary and cultural canon which Rowling has intentionally avoided.



            Dragons are, of course, fearsome creatures. But there is also a longstanding tradition, far older than Tolkien, of individual knights slaying them. Probably the earliest surviving example which can be called "English" in any sense is Beowulf, but of course there are numerous more modern examples. The dragons used in the Triwizard Tournament are a continuation of that literary trope. The "knights" are schoolchildren because the protagonists are schoolchildren. Finally, they didn't actually slay the dragons. They just had to retrieve an egg.



            Turning to broader genre differences, it's clear that Rowling was intent on writing a "civilized" world, in which humans have a substantial level of control over magic. The dragons (and various other magical creatures) are kept as pets. The elves are enslaved. The goblins once rebelled, but now they merely run the economy. Why? Because Rowling was not writing a fantasy in which "anything can happen." She was writing a boarding school story which just so happened to be set in a magical environment. Boarding school stories can have a substantial level of mischief (think of Harry and company sneaking around with the invisibility cloak), but a common baseline assumption is that the school is mostly safe and mostly a civilized environment, in which children need only moderate adult supervision.






            share|improve this answer























            • I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
              – Adamant
              2 hours ago












            • @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
              – Kevin
              2 hours ago












            • Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
              – ruakh
              57 secs ago















            up vote
            3
            down vote













            She didn't choose to violate genre conventions. She doesn't read fantasy in the first place, and Harry Potter wasn't intended as a (high) fantasy.



            In an interview with The New York Times, J. K. Rowling said the following:




            Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?



            “Can’t be bothered with” isn’t a phrase I’d use, because my reading tastes are pretty catholic [lowercase in original]. I don’t read “chick lit,” fantasy or science fiction but I’ll give any book a chance if it’s lying there and I’ve got half an hour to kill.[...]




            She also didn't consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone a work of fantasy until after she'd written it. Another answer to the linked question contains numerous additional quotations indicating that Rowling doesn't like or read fantasy, so I'm going to consider that a well-established fact.



            Given that Rowling does not read fantasy, we have to interpret Harry Potter in the broader context of English literature rather than as an intentional work of high fantasy. Comparisons with The Hobbit and other works in Tolkien's legendarium are particularly inapt, because those works spawned a literary and cultural canon which Rowling has intentionally avoided.



            Dragons are, of course, fearsome creatures. But there is also a longstanding tradition, far older than Tolkien, of individual knights slaying them. Probably the earliest surviving example which can be called "English" in any sense is Beowulf, but of course there are numerous more modern examples. The dragons used in the Triwizard Tournament are a continuation of that literary trope. The "knights" are schoolchildren because the protagonists are schoolchildren. Finally, they didn't actually slay the dragons. They just had to retrieve an egg.



            Turning to broader genre differences, it's clear that Rowling was intent on writing a "civilized" world, in which humans have a substantial level of control over magic. The dragons (and various other magical creatures) are kept as pets. The elves are enslaved. The goblins once rebelled, but now they merely run the economy. Why? Because Rowling was not writing a fantasy in which "anything can happen." She was writing a boarding school story which just so happened to be set in a magical environment. Boarding school stories can have a substantial level of mischief (think of Harry and company sneaking around with the invisibility cloak), but a common baseline assumption is that the school is mostly safe and mostly a civilized environment, in which children need only moderate adult supervision.






            share|improve this answer























            • I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
              – Adamant
              2 hours ago












            • @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
              – Kevin
              2 hours ago












            • Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
              – ruakh
              57 secs ago













            up vote
            3
            down vote










            up vote
            3
            down vote









            She didn't choose to violate genre conventions. She doesn't read fantasy in the first place, and Harry Potter wasn't intended as a (high) fantasy.



            In an interview with The New York Times, J. K. Rowling said the following:




            Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?



            “Can’t be bothered with” isn’t a phrase I’d use, because my reading tastes are pretty catholic [lowercase in original]. I don’t read “chick lit,” fantasy or science fiction but I’ll give any book a chance if it’s lying there and I’ve got half an hour to kill.[...]




            She also didn't consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone a work of fantasy until after she'd written it. Another answer to the linked question contains numerous additional quotations indicating that Rowling doesn't like or read fantasy, so I'm going to consider that a well-established fact.



            Given that Rowling does not read fantasy, we have to interpret Harry Potter in the broader context of English literature rather than as an intentional work of high fantasy. Comparisons with The Hobbit and other works in Tolkien's legendarium are particularly inapt, because those works spawned a literary and cultural canon which Rowling has intentionally avoided.



            Dragons are, of course, fearsome creatures. But there is also a longstanding tradition, far older than Tolkien, of individual knights slaying them. Probably the earliest surviving example which can be called "English" in any sense is Beowulf, but of course there are numerous more modern examples. The dragons used in the Triwizard Tournament are a continuation of that literary trope. The "knights" are schoolchildren because the protagonists are schoolchildren. Finally, they didn't actually slay the dragons. They just had to retrieve an egg.



            Turning to broader genre differences, it's clear that Rowling was intent on writing a "civilized" world, in which humans have a substantial level of control over magic. The dragons (and various other magical creatures) are kept as pets. The elves are enslaved. The goblins once rebelled, but now they merely run the economy. Why? Because Rowling was not writing a fantasy in which "anything can happen." She was writing a boarding school story which just so happened to be set in a magical environment. Boarding school stories can have a substantial level of mischief (think of Harry and company sneaking around with the invisibility cloak), but a common baseline assumption is that the school is mostly safe and mostly a civilized environment, in which children need only moderate adult supervision.






            share|improve this answer














            She didn't choose to violate genre conventions. She doesn't read fantasy in the first place, and Harry Potter wasn't intended as a (high) fantasy.



            In an interview with The New York Times, J. K. Rowling said the following:




            Any literary genre you simply can’t be bothered with?



            “Can’t be bothered with” isn’t a phrase I’d use, because my reading tastes are pretty catholic [lowercase in original]. I don’t read “chick lit,” fantasy or science fiction but I’ll give any book a chance if it’s lying there and I’ve got half an hour to kill.[...]




            She also didn't consider Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone a work of fantasy until after she'd written it. Another answer to the linked question contains numerous additional quotations indicating that Rowling doesn't like or read fantasy, so I'm going to consider that a well-established fact.



            Given that Rowling does not read fantasy, we have to interpret Harry Potter in the broader context of English literature rather than as an intentional work of high fantasy. Comparisons with The Hobbit and other works in Tolkien's legendarium are particularly inapt, because those works spawned a literary and cultural canon which Rowling has intentionally avoided.



            Dragons are, of course, fearsome creatures. But there is also a longstanding tradition, far older than Tolkien, of individual knights slaying them. Probably the earliest surviving example which can be called "English" in any sense is Beowulf, but of course there are numerous more modern examples. The dragons used in the Triwizard Tournament are a continuation of that literary trope. The "knights" are schoolchildren because the protagonists are schoolchildren. Finally, they didn't actually slay the dragons. They just had to retrieve an egg.



            Turning to broader genre differences, it's clear that Rowling was intent on writing a "civilized" world, in which humans have a substantial level of control over magic. The dragons (and various other magical creatures) are kept as pets. The elves are enslaved. The goblins once rebelled, but now they merely run the economy. Why? Because Rowling was not writing a fantasy in which "anything can happen." She was writing a boarding school story which just so happened to be set in a magical environment. Boarding school stories can have a substantial level of mischief (think of Harry and company sneaking around with the invisibility cloak), but a common baseline assumption is that the school is mostly safe and mostly a civilized environment, in which children need only moderate adult supervision.







            share|improve this answer














            share|improve this answer



            share|improve this answer








            edited 3 hours ago

























            answered 3 hours ago









            Kevin

            5,65632750




            5,65632750












            • I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
              – Adamant
              2 hours ago












            • @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
              – Kevin
              2 hours ago












            • Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
              – ruakh
              57 secs ago


















            • I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
              – Adamant
              2 hours ago












            • @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
              – Kevin
              2 hours ago












            • Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
              – ruakh
              57 secs ago
















            I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
            – Adamant
            2 hours ago






            I mean, it's still fantasy in all practical senses, even if Rowling doesn't like that label or have it in mind while writing. That it's not a Tolkien knockoff doesn't change this.
            – Adamant
            2 hours ago














            @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
            – Kevin
            2 hours ago






            @Adamant: Yes, it is a fantasy. But it's not high fantasy, which is a more specific genre. "Fantasy" is a very broad term and it's not fair to expect Rowling to follow genre conventions which she never read or aspired to.
            – Kevin
            2 hours ago














            Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
            – ruakh
            57 secs ago




            Re: "pretty catholic [lowercase in original]": I'm not sure why you felt the need to specify "lowercase in original"; no one capitalizes this sense of the word "catholic", so there's no reason to call special attention to the fact that the Times wrote it in the normal way. You might almost as well follow your quotation with [correct spelling and punctuation in original]. :-P
            – ruakh
            57 secs ago


















            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Science Fiction & Fantasy Stack Exchange!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fscifi.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f200018%2fwhy-did-j-k-rowling-choose-to-downplay-dragons%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            flock() on closed filehandle LOCK_FILE at /usr/bin/apt-mirror

            Mangá

            Eduardo VII do Reino Unido