Hallows of Hogwarts "for years" working title of DH
Harry, A History
January 19, 2009, 03:15 AM
A small but fun factual nugget was hidden in the JKR interview from Harry, A History (which is available here). I've posted it now on the Web site. It seems Hallows of Hogwarts was a working title for DH; this title had been trademarked along with a bunch of others but (it seems) hadn't ever been pegged as an actual working title - until now. A fun fact for all of us who like to obsess. Click the link to read more and enjoy!
Just to show you how far back on Leaky the title “Hallows of Hogwarts” was posted: I had grown to believe it was one of the tracks on the Prisoner of Azkaban soundtrack. Incorrect, of course… but yesterday when I read this, I had to check the track list to make sure. So “The Hallows of Hogwarts” was obviously heavy on my mind the first couple of times I listened to the Azkaban soundtrack :)
“im glad she didnt call it that! they’re not exactly hallows of HOGWARTS.
i’m sure she’d never do it though.”
They would have been and she would have if she wrote it that way.
“Hallows of Hogwarts” would have been OK also. It was in Hogwarts after all that the three Hallows where united and Harry was becomming “Master of Death”. He had faced Death valiently in various ocassions since he was elven.
And it was in Hogwarts also where the ·"Master of the most intentions to escape Death" Volemort found his well deserved end; and burn in hell divided in his eight parts, after having been killed eight times.
Thanks Melissa for the info, its always fun to read your interview snippets.
I’ve grown to accept the Deathly Hallows title – I’m agreeing with the conesus that Hallows of Hogwarts is Hway Htoo Hmany HHHHHH’s – but for awhile I didn’t even like that. I find the word “deathly” kind of awkward. But in light of it’s potential replacement…
i dont think that the peverells have anything to do with hogwarts. where did this notion come from??
In which case Rowling should have done a better job of foreshadowing the Elder Wand instead of seeming to throw it in at the last minute. This makes DH even more of a disappointment since she clearly had the Three Hallows planned from early on.
@voldy: the Hogwarts founders thing comes from the bit where Tom is the heir of Slytherin. So, if Tom is the heir of Slytherin, but also related to the Peverells, then Slytherin, the Peverells, Voldemort, and Harry, are all, at the very least, distantly related (if only though marriage).
@ Yoda the hobbit
But Jo would never have written it like that (all hallows being in Hogwarts), because she’s always known how the story would go. So she could’ve probably changed a lot (and has, probably), but where the hallows are stached is important, she must have known where they were hid from the start. So title not so good imo…
To SarahD: I agree with you. In early television interviews JKR talked about how important it was for her to keep the story as she originally designed it and not to have it changed. But she states in her interview with Melissa that she changed it completely and seems to have moved away from the Hallows of Hogwarts, a very tight and clever story line with plenty of foreshadowing, to the Peverell stuff and the Elder Wand, which is not well integrated into the previous six books. I think the change may not have been a true improvement. Instead of drawing together all of the little bits and pieces she had layed out for us in the first six books, it seems DH started out in another direction and made superficial references to earlier events, without ever tying them into a brilliant, braided story. I hate to say it, but while I think DH is a well written book, I really don’t think it was as good it it could have been in drawing together lose ends rather than throwing a whole bunch of new stuff out on the table.
I do wonder why she abandoned the Hogwarts Hallows idea that she started with. I think it was a poor choice on JKR’s part. I can’t believe that the Tales of Beedle the Bard were planned from the beginning. There is no reference to them at all in earlier books, and there was so much opportunity to do so. I think she just took a left turn with DH and headed off into new territory. Not bad for a new book, but not so good for the final volume in a series.
Let’s not forget that the hallows were all at Hogwarts with Dumbledore, and returned there with Harry. She could’ve plausibly kept that title without a major rework; she just didn’t want to because it didn’t sound as effective as “Deathly Hallows” did.
Also, let’s not confuse the main plotline of Harry’s story, which was planned from the beginning, with the Tales, which were not.
What Jo said was that the last third of DH was pretty much as she had planned it. That probably means from Gringotts onwards, and is the main action of the book. By that point all the back story of the Hallows had been established, including that they were “of Peveralls” not “of Hogwarts”, so it would have made very little difference to that section if the Hallows had a different back story.
As for foreshadowing, a lot of the things in DH can’t be foreshadowed because it would give too much away. Though actually, all three of the Hallows are in earlier books, so are foreshadowed to some extent.
@ Remus Lonno
The objects that housed the horcruxes are hallows, by definition of “hallows” as objects with special powers or characteristics, just as the wand and cloak could be. I think my assumption was that the original title, “The Hallows of Hogwarts” would have very nicely fit the all important horcrux objects (the first set of hallows we are introduced to in the first six books) instead of the special wand, the ring and cloak, which were not horcrux objects but were grouped togther as a second set of hallowed items.
The emphasis on finding the six horcruxes, entombed in their individual hallows, with Harry being an unknowing seventh horcrux, makes for a far more engaging melding of the initial six books into the seventh and last.
But there are quite a few changes throughout the books that have intrinsically changed what could have been. An intriguing one is Grindelwald. In an earlier interview, JKR is asked if Grindlewald is dead and she says, yes, definitely dead. But then he is resurrected for a cameo scene in Book 7 (which really didn’t add much to the story beyond showing that he still lived). Why the change?
I wish I felt otherwise, but I really sense that JKR changed routes after Book 6 and headed in a new direction for Book 7. Maybe she had lots more left in her imagination that she wanted to work with before finishing the series. Who knows. But so many new things in Book 7 were not foreshadowed and this differed dramatically from the preceeding six books.
In Harry, A History, Melissa talks about the joy in discovering, while reading through the first few books, that the story really was continous and connected. That was a great strength to the series. Book 7 sort of fell off the wagon on that count. Even the characters changed. One of the really fun things in the earlier books was how the threesome cleverly used their wits and knowledge to cope with things. In Book 7 they were sad, barely coping, and just not themselves. Hermione, who always knew something brilliant and useful, put together the ten-ton purse and threw everything into it, but she didn’t wow us (as she usually did in the past) with wonderful knowledge and an ability to bail them all out through that knowledge. Harry, in previous books, was inventive and resourceful, yet he seemed to have completely forgotten about how Slughorn got by by “borrowing” houses and they struggled on in that miserable tent for so long that I had to put the book down a few times waiting for them to come to their senses. But they didn’t. They just moped on.
All in all, DH felt different, depressed the ability of the main characters, missed opportunities to weave in past material, and added a truck load of new stuff that was OK, but not stellar and was completely missed in the previous style of foeshadowing and “Aha!” moments. It almost felt, at time, as though it was by a different author. Very intelligent and well plotted out, but the humor and surprise were gone. It just plodded along through months of tenting and asking, over and over again, what would the six horcruxes be, when what was really important were the brand new three Peverell “hallows.”
I used to always think that a great weakness of the movies was that the plot line was a single thread that pulled you along from start to end. And the books were always stopping and starting in a miraculous way that jolted you and surprised you. But Book 7 was more like the movie scripts. It just plodded along from point A to point B to point C in a linear fashion.
I still think the Hallows of Hogwarts were the hallowed items from each of the four founders: Slytherin – the locket, Hufflepuff – the cup, something from Ravenclaw – perhaps the one lone wand on the purple pillow at Ollivander’s?, and something from Gryffindor – possibly the sword?; Voldemort’s diary, Voldemort’s snake or the Peverell ring, and ! surprise ! Harry as an unintended number seven.
I always thought that the invisibility cloak was like the Marauder’s Map and Sirius’s mirror, something of great use to Harry, a tool, but not something that was key in Dumbledore’s life or Voldemort’s either.
I think JKR changed her mid about this and deviated from her original plan greatly at the end.
Wish she hadn’t.
“Hallows at Hogwarts” sweet!
It sounds like all pure bloods have married first or second cousins so that makes all pure bloods related to one another. Isn’t that why many have become so mean and wierd over the years. Look at the Gaunts for crying out loud!
I did like “Hallows at Hogwarts” thou. Both titles would have worked.
weird i could see it either way on the titles. but why hogwarts i can see why of course because they came from hogwarts original teacher. wow!!!!!!!!