h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I think it's also rather blackly comic of her to turn the most famous kiddie spell 'abracadabra' into avada kedavra the death curse in Goblet of Fire

Well, Abracadabara is actually very old and I don't know that you can actually claim it as a children's thing -- though since magic seems to be defined as a children's thing generally I guess that it's been the repository for most of the historical odds and ends.

As for the author's sources... I'd be very surprised if her spells had a Wiccan source. Now, this isn't my tradition and my knowledge of Wicca is restricted to a few books I've read and a fair number of people I've talked to. But the conception of magic in Wiccan belief (that I've seen) is very very different than that in the books. The books have a spell and wand idea, a sort of "point and shoot" active magic. Wicca as I've seen it seems much more ritual-based and meditative.

The spells are closer to mediaeval magic, but even then not very much so. The magic in the books is, in fact, totally based on the "mainstream" of children's books -- that's sort of the point I think! She isn't trying to create a real magic, she's creating a wish-fullfillment, a fantasy. If Rowling really believed in this it would, for me, be quite horrible (not evil, just sad and a little ugly). But as a "lets pretend" it is charming and exciting.

I agree that the magic in the books is much more what the vast majority of children will recognise as "magic", wands, potions and magic words.
I just meant previously that abracadabra is the magic word that kids seem to pick up, which is why I find its adaption entertaining

Anyone remember Roald Dahl with his inventive made-up terms (Vermicious Knid, for instance)? Not that she's plagiarising, of course, just that good things come in cycles.
Spaced just enough apart to make you think "Alas! Literature is dead," (or something less melodramatic) and then have your faith in creativity revived.

Well I am now back in the childrens section of the bookshop, which I left after 'Goodnight Mr Tom' and the sad demise of Roald Dahl. Working on the premise that a good story is a good story whatever age it's meant for.

And I love wacky names - but they're not just in kids books. Mrs Jellyby and the natives of Boriaboolagah (sp?) anyone???

I also objected to the Philosopher/Sorcerer change. I also like the way that the names and spells are done. Remus Lupin, for example, has both his first and last name hinting he's a werewolf. Also, I am doing a spell database for school, and I am pretty sure that the spell Hermione used in the third book at the Three Broomsticks, "Mobilarbus", is a specialized spell for moving trees rather than a stronger Wingardium Leviosa.

I am a Yank who knows what "knickers" means. I think that those of us who had heard of a Philosopher's Stone had an advantage in predicting the plot of HP #1, since we knew what the Stone was supposed to do. Still, I'm sure that American publishers had their reasons for changing it to a Sorcerer's Stone. The title "Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone" is euphonious (pleasant-sounding). "Philosopher's" has four syllables, which disrupts the rhythm somewhat. Also, Harry Potter fans, especially the younger ones, may find sorcerers more interesting than philosophers -- and the change reflects the general tone of the book, because Harry is a sorcerer, not a philosopher or an alchemist.

However, I still don't know why the title of HP #4 was changed to "Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire." I loved the original title: "Harry Potter and the Doomspell Tournament." Admittedly, the tournament itself became the Triwizard Tournament (I suppose not too many people would want to enter a contest that had "doom" in its name), but that was still an incredibly good title.