Who Wrote Harry Potter?

An Analysis of Authorship regarding the "Harry Potter" books
-by Meleka Dodgers, PhD, E1, University of NE Usa.
August 2, 3008

"Who wrote Harry Potter?"

While these fabled stories have been mentioned for the last thousand years in various archival chronicles archaeological evidence had been sparse. It was only recently (relatively speaking) at a dig in Eveland found all 7 tomes nearly all intact. Up until this point we had pieced together their contents from page fragments or story summary lists. But the freshness of the find of 2899 made the study of the materials all the more rich.

Of course, there were a number of unanswered questions. Dating of the Potter epic, commonly known today as the Pottemort, has been problematic at best. We have evidence that the books were written somewhere between 1859 and 2130. The copies of the Eveland find were dated to approximately 2200. A common practice in earlier literary/historical criticism would examine the publishing date printed on the text if it could be found intact. But as Dr. Alexander Summption pointed out, these numbers could be horribly unreliable. Because of their disjointed connection to the body of the actual text, the general rule of thumb is that dates were added by later keepers of the manuscripts to establish authenticity or closeness to the original publishing date.

Another question regarded how many books there were. Most scholars accept the number 7 as the official cannon, but last decade's uncovering of an 8th chapter of Pottermort has led to a whole new host of speculation. Because this discovery was not literary, but belonged to the ancient art form known as "Flim," it has been discounted as a part of the original saga.

But the primary question that we will answer today is perhaps the most important: who wrote Harry Potter?

Most every school-child who has heard the legend knows that the name attached to discovered texts is "J.K.Rowling." 

Artist rendering of JK Rowling

For centuries it has been widely assumed that he is the only author. Every scrap of historical data regarding this topic universally ascribes sole authorship to him. But a close analysis of the text may reveal a completely different interpretation of how Pottermort came to be. Using modern investigative tools, we can now say with a good amount of certainty that there were at least 5 different authors. The case for this conclusion will be made plain in the following article.

First we must break up the epic into the appropriate pericopes. The 7 canonical books are "Philosopher's Stone," "Chamber of Secrets," "Prisoner of Azkaban," "Goblet of Fire," "Order of the Phoenix," "Half-Blood Prince," and "Deathly Hallows." There is some question as to which of the books was written first. The order given here is the order of the chronological events of the epic, but as with investigations into Cslewis' "Books of Aslan," this is not a sure method of determination. Philosopher's Stone is the shortest and differs radically in tone and structure as well as diction from all the others. Because of its simplicity it is universally accepted to be the first written. However, it has recently been determined that there are at least two sources for this text. The bulk of the story was written by some original author we will call "JK Prime." JK Prime seems to draw heavily on the ancient English boarding school literary tradition that was common around the era of writing. But the pace of the story appears simplistic, almost child-like in tone. Until the last 3 chapters, it would appear to be a standard book meant for children, except for the twist regarding Quirrel/Voldemort. The story makes very clear that Severus Snape is the main villain of the piece. His demeanor, language, and even his very physical appearance are consistent with ancient caricatures of villainy. Note his long nose, greasy hair, and black attire. The clues from earlier in the text, such has his injury from Fluffy and the pain in Harry's scar when Snape stares at him, make quite obvious that the story was leading to an end confrontation with between Harry and Snape. But those familiar with Pottermort know that this first installment ends with confrontation not with Snape but Quirell. Given the level of sophistication written into the confrontation, it is believed that this is in actuality a later addition redacted into the original text.

This second source, whom we will identify as the "JK Severus," is one marked by a deep affection for the character of Snape. JK Severus, for reasons we have yet to ascertain, probably received the original anti-Snape text in its entirety and then excised the original ending for one that was more pro-Snape. The heavy exposition in the Quirell confrontation supports this claim. Had Snape simply appeared at the end, the confrontation would have proceeded quickly, keeping in rhythm with the simple flow of the JK Prime story. But because of the radical change in the ending, JK Severus needed to add page upon page of exposition to explain to the simple-minded reader why the logical villain, Snape, is not present. Story point after story point is touched in order to cement the guilt of Quirell in the mind of the reader. For this reason it is assumed that JK Severus was intimately familiar with the original JK Prime story, which would allow him to fit his knew ending almost seamlessly into the original.
A text critical analysis shows a remarkable bit of evidence to prove this point. As far as can be ascertained, "Philosopher's Stone” is the only story to be found with two titles in the original English. Why the change in title? Unfortunately, we only have fragments of the manuscript entitled, "Philosopher's Stone." The Eveland dig found the title of the first text to be "Sorcerer's Stone." This latter book was found completely intact. When examined side by side with the fragments of “Philosopher's Stone,” it was determined that "Sorcerer's Stone” was not a new Pottermort chapter, but a copy of “Philosopher's Stone.” What probably happened was that “Philosopher's Stone” was written first, completely by JK Prime with the original anti-Snape ending. Some years later, our best guess is between 10 to 20, JK Severus came across the manuscript. By this time “Philosopher's Stone” was not as widespread among the people, which would explain the lack of surviving manuscripts. JK Severus proceeded to redact "Philosopher's Stone” and repackage it under the title "Sorcerer's Stone.” The necessity of the 2 titles stems from the new ending given to the story by JK Severus.

It is also believed that JK Prime did not intend to write beyond Philosopher's Stone. The story as JK Prime envisioned was short and self-contained, not lending itself to sequels or epics. JK Severus, however, opened up the doorway to the epic of Pottermort with the dialogue he wrote between Harry and Albus. Note, once again, the JK Severus style of long exposition as Dumbledore plants the seeds for further adventures in the mind of Harry and the reader. JK Severus probably wrote the new ending as a gateway to his completely original work, Chamber of Secrets. This, the second part of Pottermort, is notable because it mirrors Philosopher's Stone in structure and length. JK Severus kept remarkably close to JK Prime's writing style. But it should be noted that the end also has a long exposition as we saw in Philosopher's Stone.  It should also be noted that Snape has a much smaller part in this piece. In fact, JK Severus creates the character of Lockhart as a foil for Snape. Perhaps in an attempt to make a literary jab at JK Prime, JK Severus paints a portrait of Lockhart in the exact opposite flavor of Snape. Lockhart is colorful, well groomed, and he has a persistent smile. It is almost as if JK Severus want to create the sharp distinction between Snape and Lockhart so that the reader could pick up on the supposed foolishness of imagining Snape to be a villain. "This is what a real villain looks like," JK Severus appears to be saying regarding Lockhart. In fact, JK Severus goes even further to poke at JK Prime by have the characters of Lockhart and Snape physically duel one another, leading to the hero, Snape, taking the villain, Lockhart, down a few notches. Therefore, it is almost certain that the primary author of Philosopher's Stone is not the one who wrote the end of Philosopher's Stone and the entirety of Chamber of Secrets.

This brings us then to the next book in chronological order: Prisoner of Azkaban. Unlike Philosopher's Stone or Chamber of Secrets, Prisoner of Azkaban appears to be the work of a third source, which we will call "JK Black." The name assigned to this author is in reference to the prominent use of the character Sirius Black, the eponymous Prisoner of Azkaban. Because of the book's complexity of character, tone, and language, we can be fairly certain that this was not writing by JK Prime. But there are markers that tell us that this was also not the work of JK Severus. The most notable of which is the negative light in which we find Severus Snape. Once again, Snape has reverted to a type of villain, whereas Black is now used as a foil much in the same way as Lockhart. But since JK Severus clearly is of pro-Snape mindset, it is obvious that Prisoner of Azkaban could not have come from this source.

So how did this third story come about? JK Black was probably a contemporary of JK Severus. The Philosopher's Stone may not have been widely read at the time that JK Severus wrote Chamber of Secrets. But its influence must have been strong enough to prompt a reaction from JK Black. Prisoner of Azkaban returns to the anti-Snape tone, which we surmise is a direct response to JK Severus' break with the JK Prime tradition. Once again we have a complete shift in tone and depth. While Chamber of Secrets was heavy in exposition, it also was simplistic in style. Prisoner of Azkaban increases the level of danger and complexity. The sophistication of the content clearly points to an irrevocable change in the Pottermort saga brought about by JK Black. JK Prime may have intended to write only a simple fairy tale, but his original intention has now been lost because of his successors taking his original Harry Potter character and placing them in their own adventures, seemingly part of a single story. In fact, JK Black goes so far as to make several connections to Philosopher's Stone, including the expansion of the Black character. In Philosopher's Stone, Black is only mentioned in one sentence: a mere throw-away character. It has been speculated that JK Black may have invented the Black character and only later redacted his name into Philosopher's Stone. But more likely, JK Black simply lifted one of JK Prime's obscure characters and based an entire story around it. He also lifted freely from JK Severus. Azkaban is first mention in Chamber of Secrets, but only in vague terms. In order to show up JK Severus, JK Black took his wizard prison and fleshed out a haunting place described with great literary might. It is not clear whether or not JK Severus wanted to continue writing Pottermort stories, but there is no doubt that JK Black planned another series of installments. The introduction of Wormtail and Lupin hint at future events. What JK Black saw that neither JK Prime nor JK Severus grasped was that this children's tale could evolve into a grand epic. For this, we are indebted to JK Black more so than JK Prime or JK Severus for giving us the Pottermort saga. It was JK Black's vision that went beyond his childish predecessors and crafted a whole new series of tales based on the foundation set by these two men. However it should be noted that JK Black does continue the JK Severus tradition of ending the Pottermort books with length dialogues of exposition.

In all likelihood, JK Black also wrote most of Goblet of Fire. While the length of the work differs from Prisoner of Azkaban, Goblet of Fire keeps most of the same cast of characters and darker themes. There are only two sections that come under suspicion. The prologue should be examined separate from the work as a whole. 90% of the text in all the Pottermort books is told from the third person limited perspective of Harry himself. But there is a radical break in this narrative style with the third person limited perspective attached to a minor character who dies at the end of the prologue. This small edition was probably introduced after the manuscript was finished. Goblet of Fire, like Prisoner of Azkaban increases in its complexity. It should not be forgotten that JK Prime's unsophisticated writing style was meant for barely literate children. As a result, there was probably a good deal of concern about whether or not the audience would be able to follow the intricate storyline. Because of the difference in style found in the prologue, it is unlikely that JK Black wrote it. We attribute this to a fourth source "JK Redactor." JK Redactor probably came a good few decades after the completion of the final Pottermort story, Deathly Hallows. The reason for this assertion is that we find similar non-Harry-centric chapters in Half-Blood Prince, Deathly Hallows, as well as Goblet of Fire. JK Redactor was a later editor who saw the work as a whole and filled in the story gaps. Unfortunately, JK Redactor did not take the time necessary to truly mimic the style of his predecessors. This is the clear give-away that we have our fourth distinctive author.

The second section to examine is the "Yule Ball." If one lifted this minor diversion from the tale, there would be little no interruption in the flow of the story. Scholars are currently debating the significance of this pericope and whether or not JK Black wrote this section. Considering the morbid themes of Goblet of Fire, the light romance might have been a later addition by another author. However, we cannot find similar passages of such a deeply romantic-comedic tone in the entire series. This may simply have been an aberration or perhaps the work of JK Redactor trying to inject some childish humor into the center of the story.

The majority of scholars agree that the center trilogy of the 7 part story was mostly written by JK Black. The arguments regarding Goblet of Fire have already been laid out. But the striking similarities between Prisoner of Azkaban and Order of the Phoenix should put to rest the question of authorship. The central importance of Sirius Black and the anti-Snape position are the surest markers of authorship. This however brings us the conundrum regarding Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows. Up until recently, these two were understood to be 2 separate stories, but in the last year critics and scholars have been turning to the conclusion that these two were originally written as 1 single volume and were only later broken into two parts. There are several bits of evidence for this theory. First of all we should examine the length. Each of the Pottermort books is greater in length than the one that preceded it. This may have been done originally as a means to out perform the previous author, and considering the animosity between JK Prime, JK Severus, and JK Black we should not find this surprising. But Half-Blood Prince alone is shorter than its direct predecessor, Order of the Phoenix, unless it is combined with Deathly Hallows. Another indicator that the 2 stories were originally linked is inconclusive nature of Half-Blood Prince. Too much of the story's plot points are not resolved until Deathly Hallows. Also, all of the Pottermort books take place at Hogwarts, except Deathly Hallows. This break in the pattern could be explained if the original text had a year at Hogwarts depicted in the section we now know today as Half-Blood Prince. Be that as it may, we have yet to find in the archaeological evidence a single volume of both texts, but we are confident one will eventually be found.

As to authorship of Half-Blood Prince and Deathly Hallows, there is some speculation. At first glance it appears very anti-Snapish, which would indicate JK Black or someone in the JK Black tradition. However the last several chapters portray Snape as not only a hero but perhaps the most important hero in the Pottermort saga. This, as we have shown earlier, was the exact same pattern found in JK Prime's "Philosopher's Stone" story. As we concluded with Philosopher's Stone, it would be logical to conclude that two different authors had a hand in shaping Deathly Hallows. It would appear that the ending was forged from the JK Severus tradition. It is entirely possible that JK Black himself wrote most of the text from Prisoner of Azkaban through Deathly Hallows. But did JK Severus himself write the new ending? And if so, how did he manage such a feat to replace JK Black's original ending?

As to the first question, it highly unlikely that the original author of Chamber of Secrets also wrote the ending of Deathly Hallows. Too many years, decades in fact, passed between the completion of Chamber of Secrets and JK Black's draft of Deathly Hallows. More likely, a following of the JK Severus writings must have remained small but strong in the intervening years between JK Black's prolific run. Unable to create a whole new story, the best that this tradition could do was influence the last story. Given the ever darkening nature of the storyline from Prisoner of Azkaban on through Half-Blood Prince, it is perfectly clear that JK Black was creating an epic tragedy that culminated with the death of the hero, Harry. Almost certainly, this was the original ending written by JK Black now lost to us in the vagaries of history. But the JK Severus tradition saw an opportunity to get its final revenge on JK Black, proposing their preferred version of the Pottermort story. The JK Severus tradition re-worked the ending to make it more pro-Snape, but also to ensure its wide-spread acceptance of the original version, gave Pottermort a happy ending. With this masses-pleasing maneuver, the JK Severus tradition supplanted the original intent of JK Black. This would explain the lack of popularity of the JK Black book and why we can find no archaeological data for it. While the new ending is more adult than JK Severus himself was (note the use of the ancient vulgarity "bitch" used by Mrs. Weasly), it also carries with it the childish wish fulfillment found in the fairy story of JK Prime. The epilogue is overly sweet, with no trace of the shadowy bitterness that dogged most of JK Black's entries into Pottermort. It is also so outlandishly pro-Snape so as to remove all doubt that pericope not being written by JK Black

In conclusion, we have 5 solid sources: JK Prime, JK Severus (and the JK Severus Tradition), JK Black, and JK Redactor all having a hand in forming the ancient epic we know as Pottermort. So what can we take away from all of this i.e. what is the great advantage of knowing the 5 sources? First of all, we no longer have to take autographed authorship at face value. Even though each of these texts bears the same name, we have proven through intense academic investigation that this is highly unreliable. Second, we no longer need to view Pottermort as a single work. To try and find a single planned thought fromPhilosopher's Stone all the way through Deathly Hallows would imply a single authorship. But the differences in style alone have precluded this. We now know that because this book had many different authors with opposing values, we should not try to harmonize these differences but set them against each other. Third, we have once again demonstrated the necessity of our literary, historical-critical method. Without these tools, we would be foolish enough to take what is written at face value. Most common people who read Pottermort believe it to be the work of a single author, with a giant plan, with one overarching theme and story arch that was meant to be read and enjoyed as a whole.
But of course we now know better. To turn your analytic mind off while reading this material is to overlook the rich mines of data that we can glean about the landscape of literature millennia ago. But using these tools we now have a window into the past, a far more accurate window, I daresay, than those who simple read Pottermort for pleasure.

The adventures of Harry Potter are not meant to be enjoyed. They are meant to be studied.