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












38














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



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



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










share|improve this question




















  • 7




    "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
    Dec 8 at 1:51






  • 2




    Game of Thrones you say? But, ehm, awww.
    – Mr Lister
    Dec 8 at 8:48






  • 1




    @Lexible That actually dovetails nicely with Kevin's answer. Brennan's series isn't high fantasy - it's a Victorian adventure fiction. It's as if Charles Dickens fictionalized Charles Darwin's adventures, but with dragons instead of finches.
    – R.M.
    Dec 8 at 16:37






  • 3




    I'd like to point out that there are no "standards" dragons. There's a lot of different dragons for a lot of different stories and none can be called "the real dragon". Dragons can be big (or not), be scally (or not), be strong (or not), be smart (or not), use magic (or not), fly (or not). So outside the fact that JK Rowling's dragon aren't really weak in the first place (see @Bellatrix answer), there can't really be any notion of "downplay" as there are no universal dragon to compare to.
    – Echox
    Dec 10 at 14:11






  • 2




    As Bellatrix points out, none of the students were tasked with defeating a dragon, just getting past it long enough to grab the egg. And, we're making an assumption that the dragons weren't juveniles themselves.
    – John Bode
    Dec 10 at 20:07
















38














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



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



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










share|improve this question




















  • 7




    "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
    Dec 8 at 1:51






  • 2




    Game of Thrones you say? But, ehm, awww.
    – Mr Lister
    Dec 8 at 8:48






  • 1




    @Lexible That actually dovetails nicely with Kevin's answer. Brennan's series isn't high fantasy - it's a Victorian adventure fiction. It's as if Charles Dickens fictionalized Charles Darwin's adventures, but with dragons instead of finches.
    – R.M.
    Dec 8 at 16:37






  • 3




    I'd like to point out that there are no "standards" dragons. There's a lot of different dragons for a lot of different stories and none can be called "the real dragon". Dragons can be big (or not), be scally (or not), be strong (or not), be smart (or not), use magic (or not), fly (or not). So outside the fact that JK Rowling's dragon aren't really weak in the first place (see @Bellatrix answer), there can't really be any notion of "downplay" as there are no universal dragon to compare to.
    – Echox
    Dec 10 at 14:11






  • 2




    As Bellatrix points out, none of the students were tasked with defeating a dragon, just getting past it long enough to grab the egg. And, we're making an assumption that the dragons weren't juveniles themselves.
    – John Bode
    Dec 10 at 20:07














38












38








38


1





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



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



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










share|improve this question















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



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



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







harry-potter dragons magical-creatures






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Dec 9 at 18:39









The Dark Lord

40.2k20192316




40.2k20192316










asked Dec 8 at 1:26









Endgame

54.9k91416818




54.9k91416818








  • 7




    "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
    Dec 8 at 1:51






  • 2




    Game of Thrones you say? But, ehm, awww.
    – Mr Lister
    Dec 8 at 8:48






  • 1




    @Lexible That actually dovetails nicely with Kevin's answer. Brennan's series isn't high fantasy - it's a Victorian adventure fiction. It's as if Charles Dickens fictionalized Charles Darwin's adventures, but with dragons instead of finches.
    – R.M.
    Dec 8 at 16:37






  • 3




    I'd like to point out that there are no "standards" dragons. There's a lot of different dragons for a lot of different stories and none can be called "the real dragon". Dragons can be big (or not), be scally (or not), be strong (or not), be smart (or not), use magic (or not), fly (or not). So outside the fact that JK Rowling's dragon aren't really weak in the first place (see @Bellatrix answer), there can't really be any notion of "downplay" as there are no universal dragon to compare to.
    – Echox
    Dec 10 at 14:11






  • 2




    As Bellatrix points out, none of the students were tasked with defeating a dragon, just getting past it long enough to grab the egg. And, we're making an assumption that the dragons weren't juveniles themselves.
    – John Bode
    Dec 10 at 20:07














  • 7




    "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
    Dec 8 at 1:51






  • 2




    Game of Thrones you say? But, ehm, awww.
    – Mr Lister
    Dec 8 at 8:48






  • 1




    @Lexible That actually dovetails nicely with Kevin's answer. Brennan's series isn't high fantasy - it's a Victorian adventure fiction. It's as if Charles Dickens fictionalized Charles Darwin's adventures, but with dragons instead of finches.
    – R.M.
    Dec 8 at 16:37






  • 3




    I'd like to point out that there are no "standards" dragons. There's a lot of different dragons for a lot of different stories and none can be called "the real dragon". Dragons can be big (or not), be scally (or not), be strong (or not), be smart (or not), use magic (or not), fly (or not). So outside the fact that JK Rowling's dragon aren't really weak in the first place (see @Bellatrix answer), there can't really be any notion of "downplay" as there are no universal dragon to compare to.
    – Echox
    Dec 10 at 14:11






  • 2




    As Bellatrix points out, none of the students were tasked with defeating a dragon, just getting past it long enough to grab the egg. And, we're making an assumption that the dragons weren't juveniles themselves.
    – John Bode
    Dec 10 at 20:07








7




7




"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
Dec 8 at 1:51




"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
Dec 8 at 1:51




2




2




Game of Thrones you say? But, ehm, awww.
– Mr Lister
Dec 8 at 8:48




Game of Thrones you say? But, ehm, awww.
– Mr Lister
Dec 8 at 8:48




1




1




@Lexible That actually dovetails nicely with Kevin's answer. Brennan's series isn't high fantasy - it's a Victorian adventure fiction. It's as if Charles Dickens fictionalized Charles Darwin's adventures, but with dragons instead of finches.
– R.M.
Dec 8 at 16:37




@Lexible That actually dovetails nicely with Kevin's answer. Brennan's series isn't high fantasy - it's a Victorian adventure fiction. It's as if Charles Dickens fictionalized Charles Darwin's adventures, but with dragons instead of finches.
– R.M.
Dec 8 at 16:37




3




3




I'd like to point out that there are no "standards" dragons. There's a lot of different dragons for a lot of different stories and none can be called "the real dragon". Dragons can be big (or not), be scally (or not), be strong (or not), be smart (or not), use magic (or not), fly (or not). So outside the fact that JK Rowling's dragon aren't really weak in the first place (see @Bellatrix answer), there can't really be any notion of "downplay" as there are no universal dragon to compare to.
– Echox
Dec 10 at 14:11




I'd like to point out that there are no "standards" dragons. There's a lot of different dragons for a lot of different stories and none can be called "the real dragon". Dragons can be big (or not), be scally (or not), be strong (or not), be smart (or not), use magic (or not), fly (or not). So outside the fact that JK Rowling's dragon aren't really weak in the first place (see @Bellatrix answer), there can't really be any notion of "downplay" as there are no universal dragon to compare to.
– Echox
Dec 10 at 14:11




2




2




As Bellatrix points out, none of the students were tasked with defeating a dragon, just getting past it long enough to grab the egg. And, we're making an assumption that the dragons weren't juveniles themselves.
– John Bode
Dec 10 at 20:07




As Bellatrix points out, none of the students were tasked with defeating a dragon, just getting past it long enough to grab the egg. And, we're making an assumption that the dragons weren't juveniles themselves.
– John Bode
Dec 10 at 20:07










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















104














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



















  • 21




    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
    Dec 8 at 5:20






  • 43




    @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
    – Kevin
    Dec 8 at 5:23






  • 19




    This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
    – Graham
    Dec 8 at 11:33








  • 11




    @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
    – Graham
    Dec 8 at 11:39






  • 28




    Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
    – Kyralessa
    Dec 8 at 13:41



















50














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

















  • 3




    Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
    – leftaroundabout
    Dec 8 at 19:16










  • @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
    – CPHPython
    Dec 10 at 17:23






  • 5




    Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
    – Janus Bahs Jacquet
    Dec 10 at 18:00



















11















They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages




They could decimate entire medieval armies without taking much damage. They would be less successful against a fighter plane or two. There is nothing about the traditional fantasy dragon that would give it much of a chance against a modern military.



Now if muggle authorities can handle dragons, it would be something of an embarrassment to the wizarding world if they could not also deal with dragons. That would make the whole wizarding thing much less awesome. It's true that muggles do a lot of things better than wizards, but dragon slaying is too much.



There is also the general principle that if you don't want an unstoppable monster to be the focus of your story, you don't have one period.






share|improve this answer

















  • 4




    That really depends on the dragon.
    – Adamant
    Dec 9 at 2:07






  • 4




    @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
    – James Hollis
    Dec 9 at 10:34






  • 5




    @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
    – James Hollis
    Dec 9 at 15:16








  • 2




    @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
    – Rogem
    Dec 9 at 15:33








  • 4




    @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
    – Rogem
    Dec 9 at 17:08



















4














Harry Potter takes place in the modern era, rather than medieval times, where the natural world has over centuries become "civilized".



Dragons are indeed powerful, and it's because of this power they are downplayed in the Harry Potter stories. In fact, dragons were so powerful they disrupted the spread of the noble wizard and muggle, and as a result were slowly hunted and pushed to the brink of extinction, much like North American Bison. By the time we meet Harry Potter, they're just not something one is ever likely to encounter in the normal course of things. If not for the work of Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel finding ways to make Dragons at least somewhat useful, they might be gone completely.




Dragons in fantasy works ... can decimate entire armies without taking much damage.




True, true. But so could wizards. For the tournament, the dragon is chained and at least partially trained, and the goal is merely to steal from it rather than defeat it. And these aren't just children. The tournament is only open those at least 17 years of age... practically adults.






share|improve this answer































    2














    It should also be considered that in the Harry Potter universe, what Muggles "know" about the magical world is often distorted or downright false.



    HP gnomes look nothing like the gnomes in that coffee-table book from a few decades back, elves look nothing like Galadriel, and so forth.



    In the case of dragons, we have intelligent and articulate dragons in Muggle fiction (such as Smaug in The Hobbit), but in the HP universe dragons' intellect is on the same order as that of lower animals. So more has been changed other than their raw power and ferocity.






    share|improve this answer























      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',
      autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
      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

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      104














      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



















      • 21




        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
        Dec 8 at 5:20






      • 43




        @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
        – Kevin
        Dec 8 at 5:23






      • 19




        This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:33








      • 11




        @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:39






      • 28




        Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
        – Kyralessa
        Dec 8 at 13:41
















      104














      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



















      • 21




        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
        Dec 8 at 5:20






      • 43




        @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
        – Kevin
        Dec 8 at 5:23






      • 19




        This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:33








      • 11




        @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:39






      • 28




        Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
        – Kyralessa
        Dec 8 at 13:41














      104












      104








      104






      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 Dec 8 at 2:03

























      answered Dec 8 at 1:53









      Kevin

      6,43143052




      6,43143052








      • 21




        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
        Dec 8 at 5:20






      • 43




        @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
        – Kevin
        Dec 8 at 5:23






      • 19




        This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:33








      • 11




        @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:39






      • 28




        Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
        – Kyralessa
        Dec 8 at 13:41














      • 21




        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
        Dec 8 at 5:20






      • 43




        @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
        – Kevin
        Dec 8 at 5:23






      • 19




        This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:33








      • 11




        @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
        – Graham
        Dec 8 at 11:39






      • 28




        Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
        – Kyralessa
        Dec 8 at 13:41








      21




      21




      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
      Dec 8 at 5:20




      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
      Dec 8 at 5:20




      43




      43




      @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
      – Kevin
      Dec 8 at 5:23




      @ruakh: You know that and I know that, but some hypothetical person clicking the edit button six months from now might not know that and try to "help."
      – Kevin
      Dec 8 at 5:23




      19




      19




      This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
      – Graham
      Dec 8 at 11:33






      This is an important answer. Post Tolkien, readers of fantasy expect worldbuilding in a way which stands up to at least casual scrutiny - who grows the food for the city, where does its money come from, and so on. Not knowing fantasy, Rowling was utterly unfamiliar with the concept. There was some retconning in later books, and some points where she just acknowledged it didn't make sense. This is why fanfic like HPMOR has been written by people who do understand fantasy conventions (and basic science) as a what-might-have-been.
      – Graham
      Dec 8 at 11:33






      11




      11




      @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
      – Graham
      Dec 8 at 11:39




      @Kevin And yet it is fair to hold her to higher standards on worldbuilding, because every novel needs a fictional setting which can withstand casual inspection, regardless of genre. Her plotting of course is very good indeed, and her writing style is perfectly pitched for her target audience; but her worldbuilding doesn't withstand the average junior school kid asking "but why...?" :)
      – Graham
      Dec 8 at 11:39




      28




      28




      Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
      – Kyralessa
      Dec 8 at 13:41




      Actually, a good bit of the humor in the book comes from the fact that, for a boarding school, Hogwarts is absurdly dangerous.
      – Kyralessa
      Dec 8 at 13:41













      50














      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

















      • 3




        Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
        – leftaroundabout
        Dec 8 at 19:16










      • @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
        – CPHPython
        Dec 10 at 17:23






      • 5




        Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
        – Janus Bahs Jacquet
        Dec 10 at 18:00
















      50














      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

















      • 3




        Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
        – leftaroundabout
        Dec 8 at 19:16










      • @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
        – CPHPython
        Dec 10 at 17:23






      • 5




        Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
        – Janus Bahs Jacquet
        Dec 10 at 18:00














      50












      50








      50






      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 Dec 8 at 1:53









      Bellatrix

      69.7k12311353




      69.7k12311353








      • 3




        Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
        – leftaroundabout
        Dec 8 at 19:16










      • @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
        – CPHPython
        Dec 10 at 17:23






      • 5




        Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
        – Janus Bahs Jacquet
        Dec 10 at 18:00














      • 3




        Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
        – leftaroundabout
        Dec 8 at 19:16










      • @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
        – CPHPython
        Dec 10 at 17:23






      • 5




        Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
        – Janus Bahs Jacquet
        Dec 10 at 18:00








      3




      3




      Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
      – leftaroundabout
      Dec 8 at 19:16




      Right. Muggles with nothing more advanced than medieval weapons would have little chance to fight a dragon.
      – leftaroundabout
      Dec 8 at 19:16












      @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
      – CPHPython
      Dec 10 at 17:23




      @leftaroundabout unless they had good stories to tell before becoming dragon chow.
      – CPHPython
      Dec 10 at 17:23




      5




      5




      Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Dec 10 at 18:00




      Sirius doesn’t even say that defeating a dragon requires about six wizards – that’s just for overcoming it. Stunning the dragon is temporary, hardly defeat. Unless I’m misremembering, we don’t actually see even a single reference to actual slaying of dragons in the Potterverse. We see them subdued, but never slain (except inasmuch as there are gloves made from dragon hide, which was presumably not given up voluntarily).
      – Janus Bahs Jacquet
      Dec 10 at 18:00











      11















      They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages




      They could decimate entire medieval armies without taking much damage. They would be less successful against a fighter plane or two. There is nothing about the traditional fantasy dragon that would give it much of a chance against a modern military.



      Now if muggle authorities can handle dragons, it would be something of an embarrassment to the wizarding world if they could not also deal with dragons. That would make the whole wizarding thing much less awesome. It's true that muggles do a lot of things better than wizards, but dragon slaying is too much.



      There is also the general principle that if you don't want an unstoppable monster to be the focus of your story, you don't have one period.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 4




        That really depends on the dragon.
        – Adamant
        Dec 9 at 2:07






      • 4




        @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 10:34






      • 5




        @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 15:16








      • 2




        @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 15:33








      • 4




        @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 17:08
















      11















      They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages




      They could decimate entire medieval armies without taking much damage. They would be less successful against a fighter plane or two. There is nothing about the traditional fantasy dragon that would give it much of a chance against a modern military.



      Now if muggle authorities can handle dragons, it would be something of an embarrassment to the wizarding world if they could not also deal with dragons. That would make the whole wizarding thing much less awesome. It's true that muggles do a lot of things better than wizards, but dragon slaying is too much.



      There is also the general principle that if you don't want an unstoppable monster to be the focus of your story, you don't have one period.






      share|improve this answer

















      • 4




        That really depends on the dragon.
        – Adamant
        Dec 9 at 2:07






      • 4




        @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 10:34






      • 5




        @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 15:16








      • 2




        @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 15:33








      • 4




        @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 17:08














      11












      11








      11







      They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages




      They could decimate entire medieval armies without taking much damage. They would be less successful against a fighter plane or two. There is nothing about the traditional fantasy dragon that would give it much of a chance against a modern military.



      Now if muggle authorities can handle dragons, it would be something of an embarrassment to the wizarding world if they could not also deal with dragons. That would make the whole wizarding thing much less awesome. It's true that muggles do a lot of things better than wizards, but dragon slaying is too much.



      There is also the general principle that if you don't want an unstoppable monster to be the focus of your story, you don't have one period.






      share|improve this answer













      They can decimate entire armies without taking much damages




      They could decimate entire medieval armies without taking much damage. They would be less successful against a fighter plane or two. There is nothing about the traditional fantasy dragon that would give it much of a chance against a modern military.



      Now if muggle authorities can handle dragons, it would be something of an embarrassment to the wizarding world if they could not also deal with dragons. That would make the whole wizarding thing much less awesome. It's true that muggles do a lot of things better than wizards, but dragon slaying is too much.



      There is also the general principle that if you don't want an unstoppable monster to be the focus of your story, you don't have one period.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered Dec 9 at 1:33









      James Hollis

      23714




      23714








      • 4




        That really depends on the dragon.
        – Adamant
        Dec 9 at 2:07






      • 4




        @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 10:34






      • 5




        @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 15:16








      • 2




        @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 15:33








      • 4




        @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 17:08














      • 4




        That really depends on the dragon.
        – Adamant
        Dec 9 at 2:07






      • 4




        @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 10:34






      • 5




        @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
        – James Hollis
        Dec 9 at 15:16








      • 2




        @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 15:33








      • 4




        @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
        – Rogem
        Dec 9 at 17:08








      4




      4




      That really depends on the dragon.
      – Adamant
      Dec 9 at 2:07




      That really depends on the dragon.
      – Adamant
      Dec 9 at 2:07




      4




      4




      @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
      – James Hollis
      Dec 9 at 10:34




      @Adamant Sgt. Maj. James Dever, the military technical advisor for 2014 Godzilla movie, has opined that the US military could stop a real life Godzilla. There aren't many fictional dragons bigger than that. escapistmagazine.com/news/view/…
      – James Hollis
      Dec 9 at 10:34




      5




      5




      @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
      – James Hollis
      Dec 9 at 15:16






      @Rogem Smaug boasted about having armor equivalent to ten shields. If we upgrade the (usually wooden or hide) medieval shield to plate armor, ten of those might be 1 inch of steel in total. He's far from invincible. Consider the A-10 Warthog, an enormous Gatling gun with a plane built around it, designed to destroy tanks. Can you name a dragon that could prevail against an A-10?
      – James Hollis
      Dec 9 at 15:16






      2




      2




      @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
      – Rogem
      Dec 9 at 15:33






      @JamesHollis It's not entirely up to the firepower: Smaug could simply choose to stay underground in a suitably hollowed out urban center, i.e. metro or sewer tunnels. Some D&D dragons could transform into civilians or rodents and thus hide among the local populace, and becoming rather impervious to appropriate levels of firepower.
      – Rogem
      Dec 9 at 15:33






      4




      4




      @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
      – Rogem
      Dec 9 at 17:08




      @JamesHollis Chinese dragons, who are almost definitely even more powerful.
      – Rogem
      Dec 9 at 17:08











      4














      Harry Potter takes place in the modern era, rather than medieval times, where the natural world has over centuries become "civilized".



      Dragons are indeed powerful, and it's because of this power they are downplayed in the Harry Potter stories. In fact, dragons were so powerful they disrupted the spread of the noble wizard and muggle, and as a result were slowly hunted and pushed to the brink of extinction, much like North American Bison. By the time we meet Harry Potter, they're just not something one is ever likely to encounter in the normal course of things. If not for the work of Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel finding ways to make Dragons at least somewhat useful, they might be gone completely.




      Dragons in fantasy works ... can decimate entire armies without taking much damage.




      True, true. But so could wizards. For the tournament, the dragon is chained and at least partially trained, and the goal is merely to steal from it rather than defeat it. And these aren't just children. The tournament is only open those at least 17 years of age... practically adults.






      share|improve this answer




























        4














        Harry Potter takes place in the modern era, rather than medieval times, where the natural world has over centuries become "civilized".



        Dragons are indeed powerful, and it's because of this power they are downplayed in the Harry Potter stories. In fact, dragons were so powerful they disrupted the spread of the noble wizard and muggle, and as a result were slowly hunted and pushed to the brink of extinction, much like North American Bison. By the time we meet Harry Potter, they're just not something one is ever likely to encounter in the normal course of things. If not for the work of Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel finding ways to make Dragons at least somewhat useful, they might be gone completely.




        Dragons in fantasy works ... can decimate entire armies without taking much damage.




        True, true. But so could wizards. For the tournament, the dragon is chained and at least partially trained, and the goal is merely to steal from it rather than defeat it. And these aren't just children. The tournament is only open those at least 17 years of age... practically adults.






        share|improve this answer


























          4












          4








          4






          Harry Potter takes place in the modern era, rather than medieval times, where the natural world has over centuries become "civilized".



          Dragons are indeed powerful, and it's because of this power they are downplayed in the Harry Potter stories. In fact, dragons were so powerful they disrupted the spread of the noble wizard and muggle, and as a result were slowly hunted and pushed to the brink of extinction, much like North American Bison. By the time we meet Harry Potter, they're just not something one is ever likely to encounter in the normal course of things. If not for the work of Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel finding ways to make Dragons at least somewhat useful, they might be gone completely.




          Dragons in fantasy works ... can decimate entire armies without taking much damage.




          True, true. But so could wizards. For the tournament, the dragon is chained and at least partially trained, and the goal is merely to steal from it rather than defeat it. And these aren't just children. The tournament is only open those at least 17 years of age... practically adults.






          share|improve this answer














          Harry Potter takes place in the modern era, rather than medieval times, where the natural world has over centuries become "civilized".



          Dragons are indeed powerful, and it's because of this power they are downplayed in the Harry Potter stories. In fact, dragons were so powerful they disrupted the spread of the noble wizard and muggle, and as a result were slowly hunted and pushed to the brink of extinction, much like North American Bison. By the time we meet Harry Potter, they're just not something one is ever likely to encounter in the normal course of things. If not for the work of Dumbledore and Nicholas Flamel finding ways to make Dragons at least somewhat useful, they might be gone completely.




          Dragons in fantasy works ... can decimate entire armies without taking much damage.




          True, true. But so could wizards. For the tournament, the dragon is chained and at least partially trained, and the goal is merely to steal from it rather than defeat it. And these aren't just children. The tournament is only open those at least 17 years of age... practically adults.







          share|improve this answer














          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer








          edited Dec 11 at 15:41

























          answered Dec 10 at 15:03









          Joel Coehoorn

          2,1921317




          2,1921317























              2














              It should also be considered that in the Harry Potter universe, what Muggles "know" about the magical world is often distorted or downright false.



              HP gnomes look nothing like the gnomes in that coffee-table book from a few decades back, elves look nothing like Galadriel, and so forth.



              In the case of dragons, we have intelligent and articulate dragons in Muggle fiction (such as Smaug in The Hobbit), but in the HP universe dragons' intellect is on the same order as that of lower animals. So more has been changed other than their raw power and ferocity.






              share|improve this answer




























                2














                It should also be considered that in the Harry Potter universe, what Muggles "know" about the magical world is often distorted or downright false.



                HP gnomes look nothing like the gnomes in that coffee-table book from a few decades back, elves look nothing like Galadriel, and so forth.



                In the case of dragons, we have intelligent and articulate dragons in Muggle fiction (such as Smaug in The Hobbit), but in the HP universe dragons' intellect is on the same order as that of lower animals. So more has been changed other than their raw power and ferocity.






                share|improve this answer


























                  2












                  2








                  2






                  It should also be considered that in the Harry Potter universe, what Muggles "know" about the magical world is often distorted or downright false.



                  HP gnomes look nothing like the gnomes in that coffee-table book from a few decades back, elves look nothing like Galadriel, and so forth.



                  In the case of dragons, we have intelligent and articulate dragons in Muggle fiction (such as Smaug in The Hobbit), but in the HP universe dragons' intellect is on the same order as that of lower animals. So more has been changed other than their raw power and ferocity.






                  share|improve this answer














                  It should also be considered that in the Harry Potter universe, what Muggles "know" about the magical world is often distorted or downright false.



                  HP gnomes look nothing like the gnomes in that coffee-table book from a few decades back, elves look nothing like Galadriel, and so forth.



                  In the case of dragons, we have intelligent and articulate dragons in Muggle fiction (such as Smaug in The Hobbit), but in the HP universe dragons' intellect is on the same order as that of lower animals. So more has been changed other than their raw power and ferocity.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited Dec 9 at 19:32

























                  answered Dec 9 at 5:16









                  EvilSnack

                  2,20669




                  2,20669






























                      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

                      How to change which sound is reproduced for terminal bell?

                      Can I use Tabulator js library in my java Spring + Thymeleaf project?

                      Title Spacing in Bjornstrup Chapter, Removing Chapter Number From Contents