Citations:Potterian

Adjective: of or pertaining to the Harry Potter series

 * Glad to see there's at least one Harry Potter name in there (come to think of it, "Chamber Lion" could be read in a Potterian sense as well).
 * I was lookign [sic] for something no Potterian and no Star Wars to read ('cause I haven't seen the movie yet) and I found a group where it was said about a possible Evangelion Movie, which I think is an interesting idea. Beside rumours and opinions, many people agreed on say that Daniel Radcliffe would be a good option for the young Shinji. Do you agree? YOu [sic] think Daniel would feit [sic] well in the character, which is 500% more complicated than Harry Potter?
 * In the HP stories, 'Slytherin' is supposedly the proper name of one of the four founders of Hogwarts, each of which have houses named after them. BTW, I've recently been paying attention to Dickens' character naming habits ('Bleak House' is on PBS in the States), and they remind me a great deal of the way Potterian characters are named. You can often tell the Good Guys from the Bad just by their names.
 * Anyway... getting serious. Few years ago I bought a nice HP agenda. It looked quite well, specially inside. The problem was that it was too much Potterian and look as though I had stolen from my son. Anything that doesn't have a close-up of Daniel Radcliffe might work for me.
 * Mmm... I use mostly Wiki as a reference (not only in Potterian stuff). So far, what I've seen of Potter is pretty much accurate and concise, as you point out. I've also corrected couple of stuff about certain characters that were out of date, which lead us to think how many other stuff some radical fans (or shippers) might do. But yes, Wiki is a good way to start for someone who has no idea about HP and it's in the beginning.
 * I might go with a costume, or with a Potterian T-shirt ("I believe Harry Potter!"). That or a Tonks costume :)
 * It has to respect (if not "obey") some sort of _internal_ conservation law as you say, which is the basis of its internal currency. I was specifically wondering what the internal magical currency is in the Potterian version of magic; effort doesn't seem relevant as not just anybody can do it. Those who can don't have to "cast spells" except apparently as focusing mechanisms; witness the scene where Potter falls through the glass into the snake exhibit without knowing how he did it. It's inheritable but so is color-blindness; are muggles "magic-blind"? If so, it's a natural manipulable force which is by definition subject to conservation laws.
 * A logical fantasy showing the characters dealing logically with the facts of their world is kind of "pro" science, science in this case being a kind of process about testing ideas against facts and evidence and finding out new things. Potterian characters are often trying to research the facts of their world (even though many of those facts - monsters and the like - appear to pop up rather randomly).
 * Mmm... I use mostly Wiki as a reference (not only in Potterian stuff). So far, what I've seen of Potter is pretty much accurate and concise, as you point out. I've also corrected couple of stuff about certain characters that were out of date, which lead us to think how many other stuff some radical fans (or shippers) might do. But yes, Wiki is a good way to start for someone who has no idea about HP and it's in the beginning.
 * I might go with a costume, or with a Potterian T-shirt ("I believe Harry Potter!"). That or a Tonks costume :)
 * It has to respect (if not "obey") some sort of _internal_ conservation law as you say, which is the basis of its internal currency. I was specifically wondering what the internal magical currency is in the Potterian version of magic; effort doesn't seem relevant as not just anybody can do it. Those who can don't have to "cast spells" except apparently as focusing mechanisms; witness the scene where Potter falls through the glass into the snake exhibit without knowing how he did it. It's inheritable but so is color-blindness; are muggles "magic-blind"? If so, it's a natural manipulable force which is by definition subject to conservation laws.
 * A logical fantasy showing the characters dealing logically with the facts of their world is kind of "pro" science, science in this case being a kind of process about testing ideas against facts and evidence and finding out new things. Potterian characters are often trying to research the facts of their world (even though many of those facts - monsters and the like - appear to pop up rather randomly).
 * It has to respect (if not "obey") some sort of _internal_ conservation law as you say, which is the basis of its internal currency. I was specifically wondering what the internal magical currency is in the Potterian version of magic; effort doesn't seem relevant as not just anybody can do it. Those who can don't have to "cast spells" except apparently as focusing mechanisms; witness the scene where Potter falls through the glass into the snake exhibit without knowing how he did it. It's inheritable but so is color-blindness; are muggles "magic-blind"? If so, it's a natural manipulable force which is by definition subject to conservation laws.
 * A logical fantasy showing the characters dealing logically with the facts of their world is kind of "pro" science, science in this case being a kind of process about testing ideas against facts and evidence and finding out new things. Potterian characters are often trying to research the facts of their world (even though many of those facts - monsters and the like - appear to pop up rather randomly).
 * A logical fantasy showing the characters dealing logically with the facts of their world is kind of "pro" science, science in this case being a kind of process about testing ideas against facts and evidence and finding out new things. Potterian characters are often trying to research the facts of their world (even though many of those facts - monsters and the like - appear to pop up rather randomly).
 * A logical fantasy showing the characters dealing logically with the facts of their world is kind of "pro" science, science in this case being a kind of process about testing ideas against facts and evidence and finding out new things. Potterian characters are often trying to research the facts of their world (even though many of those facts - monsters and the like - appear to pop up rather randomly).