I've gotten behind in some of my groups lately, and I'm still catching
up on the last week's worth of posts here, but I noticed this question
from Hans and decided to try to answer it in the meantime. I haven't
read anyone else's answers yet, just to see what comes to me first.

--- In harrypotterforseekers@yahoogroups.com, Hans Rieuwers
<hansrieuwers@y...> wrote:
> I have a new topic to which everyone can easily
> contribute: "What makes Harry Potter so powerful?"

Easy? I've been ruminating on this for a couple of days now, and I'm
still not quite sure I can put this into words. You'll have to
forgive me if I ramble a bit, but it'll all be relevant, if incomplete.

Well, it's mostly about Harry for me, I guess. He has this huge, yet
believable store of goodness with just enough flaws to make him real.
His characterisation is so consistent that it's easy to feel as if
I know (and love) the kid. And the whole story itself rings true to
me somehow. I think I am remembering correctly from an interview that
JKR persisted in trying to write and publish the first book because
she "believed" in it, and I get the feeling she meant more than just
that the book could sell. I think she is writing the series in this
way -- to reflect what she honestly believes to be good, or evil, or
simply human, things in each situation, rather than trying to write
what might sell or what the critics might like. Perhaps it is this,
along with a great story, that pulls so many of us in.

What parts of the books really get to me? I think there are two
categories:

The little things that paint vivid pictures of the characters:
~'Aaaaah,' said Ron, imitating Professor Trelawney's mystical whisper
'when two Neptunes appear in the sky, it is a sure sign that a midget
in glasses is being born, Harry...'
~About the twins and Ron flying the car: 'Did you really?' said Mr
Weasley eagerly. 'Did it go all right? I - I mean,' he faltered, as
sparks flew from Mrs Weasley's eyes, 'that - that was very wrong, boys
-- very wrong indeed...'
~He walked slowly up the corridor, then, when he had turned the corner
and was sure she would not hear him, broke into a run. (After Harry's
first detention with Umbridge)

The big, intense scenes which could so easily get maudlin or campy,
but never do:
~In the shrieking shack when Harry can't kill Sirius. Ever since he
thought he knew who Sirius Black was, he thought he wanted to take
revenge on him. Yet when he had his wand on him, he couldn't even try.
~The graveyard scene. I spent ages rereading it, trying to figure out
why it worked so well, until I finally came across an old HPfGU post
by Elkins which explained it really well. JKR paints a picture of a
truly evil Voldemort and truly dark magic. A grave in a churchyard is
desecrated. Voldemort the patricide violates his father's body yet
again. He violates Harry's as well, by kidnapping, torture, and the
theft of his blood for an abominable use. Harry's innocence shines
out in contrast -- he doesn't *deserve* this, this is so *wrong,* and
then Harry's strong will (the stubbornness which can drive people
nuts) saves his life.
~In Dumbledore's office at the end of OoP when Harry does not want to
*be* Harry anymore. I needed this by then, because so many horrible
things had happened to him, while he soldiered on as best he could,
that I needed him to react emphatically to the fact that his life had
been so twisted by Voldemort. Not that he exactly got around to
blaming Voldemort for it (but everyone else, including himself,
instead), but that will come, I suppose.

These are only some of the examples that come to mind immediately. I'm
too tired to write more, but you get the idea. I'm not at all sure
they explain *why* these books mean so much to me -- after all, other
authors have attempted (some with much success) the apt turns of
phrase and the dramatic scenes. I think part of the attraction for me
turns on the "realness" of the characters, especially Harry. He seems
like a real kid who is very good, as if an actual Real Life Person
(me, for instance) could be a bit more like that if they really wanted
to. The books seem to be very encouraging (en-courage: imparting
courage) in bad times, as well.

Finally, I want to mention that I am still very much waiting for
meaning in the end of the story. I'm not going to really know what I
think until I've read all of what Jo has to say. I'm glad to know
that she worked it out even before the first book was published, so
that I can be sure that this is all one, coherent story, with an end
that ought to befit the beginning and the middle.

Oh, and by the way, I am very tired, as I said. I'm sure I've left
things out that I'll think of later, or realise I could have said
something better than I have. I'm also thinking that I'll read
someone else's answer which will remind me of something else I could
have written, and might need to respond, if only to agree. ;)

The bottom line: this story is *good* -- in every sense of the word.

Annemehr