Slashdot Mirror
Seventh Harry Potter Book Named
Croakyvoice writes "JK Rowling has today given fans of the Harry Potter books the name of Book 7 of the very popular series via a Christmas present on her site, to get to the name you need to follow a complicated procedure but thankfully the name of the book has been revealed as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows."
Seriously, a book has been titled? So what?
I can't believe this is on the Beeb and Slashdot's front pages.
OMG! Wau!
Amen. I teach 5th grade and it is astonishing to see how engrossed nearly all the students are with the Harry Potter franchise. It's not the movies that draw them in either, that's just icing on the cake. I ask them about a new Potter film and they will tell me, "It's not as good as tht Book." or "This was different in the Book." Older children and young adults love these stories, and why not. A Fantasy world set in the modern era, with young teens as the protagonists who become wrapped up in a mystery at a fantastic magical castle while casting magical spells, defeating monsters and overcoming issues teens their age face (puberty, dating, school/studies). Who has the right to say to readers, "This is crap, read something better," especially to budding readers who are already at an age when young boys begin dropping off from reading as it becomes "uncool." Maybe Harry Potter isn't listed on "great literature" lists, who cares. Kids are reading, and that is reallly the most important part. They are challenging themselves to read a significant novel of considerable depth and length for people their age. If they enjoy these stories, you can turn them on to other works they might enjoy to push their boundaries and reading capabilities. Enough witht he Harry Potter bashing, if you don't like them, don't read them.
I don't think so. As another poster pointed out, "hallows" can mean "relics". Now, what would qualify as a "relic" in the previous book, that's associated with death?
... "Harry Potter and the Horcruxes".
Perhaps a good translation of the title might be
"This is crap, read something better,"
I don't think anyone's saying that, especially not to kids. It's the hordes of adults who go on about it being some quantum leap in the evolution of literature, who are somewhat bemusing (or annoying, depending on your perspective).
sic transit gloria mundi
Mod me down if you must but damn, the one time I don't have mod points to use and like the majority of comments are just flamebait and trolling. Quite a few nerds are into Harry Potter, let's not forget nerds extend into the fantasy genre, and there has been plenty of news on such things as Lord of the Rings or Warhammer on /. in the past...So why the hate for HP? If you dislike the novels for their story and such, thats your opinion you are entitled too but damn, don't dis on Neil for putting up a story many of us are interested in.
Aw Frell this
I don't like it because of one point you raised (but I think you didn't emphasize enough)- the protagonist is merely average. And yet he manages to overcome through sheer luck of the draw and general bumblingness someone who is by no means average and has an advantage over him in just about every way possible, other than being bigoted.
Reminds me of that quote from Spacebattles:
"Evil will always win... because good is STUPID!"
It just annoys the hell out of me that the bigots always lose because they're bigoted. Sure they're bigots, but I really don't care. The fact that Harry's incompetent bugs the hell out of me a lot more.
"It is possible to commit no errors and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life." -Peak Performance
Despite your troll, you've almost got it right. The final chapter of the final book will actually be entitled "The Boy Who Lived," just like the first chapter of the first book.
Note how clever that turn of phrase is: you can look at the table of contents and see that chapter title, but you won't know until you read the book whether it means 1) the boy who used to live, or 2) the boy who fought Voldemort (again) and lived.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
Maybe it's because the character has flaws that millions of people identify with him?
If you look at Bilbo, Frodo (as you pointed out), or, actually, most contemporary (low- or high-brow) fantasy, you're going to find bumbling characters who make mistakes and only pull through because of Deus Ex Machina, luck of the draw, or some moral accomplishment.
I think it's the fact that we all recognize our own faults and inner issues, and can see them portrayed in these characters, that makes us, as readers, identify with the heroes of these stories.
We fuck up. We make mistakes. Sometimes, we're jerks to our friends, we don't put enough time into our relationships, and we make the wrong moral decisions.
Superman doesn't have those problems.
Harry Potter has those problems.
Remember the success of Spider-Man? From the Wikipedia article: The Spider-Man series broke ground by featuring a hero who himself was an adolescent, to whose "self-obsessions with rejection, inadequacy, and loneliness" young readers could relate.
Harry is the anti-geek: he isn't smart, isn't the best in school, doesn't give a rat's ass about magic, etc. The only thing he is good at is flying his stick; Harry is a JOCK! People love him, help him cheat or give him secret help so that he always looks good in public and the people with real talent around him are diminished. His only claim to fame is his heritage.
Oddly enough you could summarize many, if not most, fiction and video games that way. BTW, I'm not sure about the "everyone rejoices" part. The last few books have gotten darker and darker and haven't had entirely happy endings.
I totally agree Fred! I can't believe how easily amused all those millions of people that love this series are. Why is it that everyone is so inferior to us? Back to reading stuff that nobody else likes because that means its got to be good!
Here's the thing: Snape was put in a position which couldn't be resolved any other way. He was forced to take the unbreakable vow to protect the Malfoy boy and to help him complete his mission (kill Dumbledore). But the reason Dumbledore trusted him implicitly is because he also asked Snape to take an unbreakable vow to protect Harry at all costs. Once the death eaters infiltrated Hogwarts, Snape had to help Malfoy kill Dumbledore to prevent greater mayhem, to prevent Malfoy's own death, and especially to get the death eaters out of Hogwarts before a confrontation with Harry, which very likely would have led to Harry's death (especially since Dumbledore was killed). When Harry chased Snape, Snape was so much more powerful and skilled than Harry that he could have killed him easily, and there was no reason not to because now everyone knows Snape is a death eater, right? Wrong. Snape wouldn't even let Harry use an unforgivable curse, because that would ultimately harm the boy himself. (Even though Harry already used Crucio on the death eaters. For that offense he is already doomed to Azkaban. But I guess everyone can overlook that because Harry is the boy wonder.)
I say Dumbledore asked Snape to take the vow because I believe they were friends, which makes Snape a tragic figure. He was always hated and misunderstood. Even the girl he had a crush on (Harry's mom) laughed when the other boys would torment Snape, and she even married his chief tormentor. Her protests to stop tormenting Snape were only half-hearted at best. Dumbledore was the ONLY friend Snape ever had, and Snape was forced to kill him. If Rowling makes him the hero in the last book, I will be VERY impressed. As much as I like the books, I only like them because she can spin a good yarn. If she was planning the Snape tragedy from the start, wow. If Snape became a death eater on his own, and who could blame him, while the whole world already hated him? If he chose to be a death eater, then I think Dumbledore ASKED him to take the vow. If Dumbledore asked him to become a death eater to spy on Voldemort, then the unbreakable vow is not needed, Dumbledore has reason to trust Snape, and Snape, in spite of being hated by everyone, and having reason to hate Harry himself, is even more of a heroic figure.
About Harry: Harry IS the final horcrux (or at least the scar on his head is) which makes his hunting and destroying the other horcruxes kind of ironic. We found out in the last book that horcruxes could be living things, such as the snake that embodied Voldemort. When the snake curled around Harry and taunted Dumbledore, telling him that he now has the opportunity to destroy Voldemort forever, I wonder if Dumbledore finally realized that Harry was the horcrux? No one could figure out how Harry managed to survive the attack that killed his parents, the scar was linked to Voldemort (it always hurt when he was around) and it gave Harry powers similar to Voldemort. It was also the scar that the sorting hat wanted to put in Slytherin.
When Dumbledore revealed the prophesy to Harry, we find out that the prophesy could have meant either Potter or Longbottom would be the one to ultimately destroy Voldemort. Dumbledore and Potter did not know why Voldemort had chosen to "attempt to destroy" Harry, but Dumbledore claimed that that was Voldemort's mistake, and the botched attempt was the accident that created Harry and gave him the power to ultimately destroy Voldemort. WRONG! Voldemort's mistake was only in thinking that Harry was the chosen one, his placing of the horcrux was an insurance policy to attempt to cheat fate (and we know from Greek mythology how well that always turns out). Longbottom is the chosen one, he is still the Charlie Brown figure, the one that can't get things right, but who always gets up and tries again. He has been steadily growing in skill and confidence throughout the books, and he will be the one to destroy the final horcrux. The only question is, can the horcrux in the scar be destroyed without also killing Harry?
More music, fewer hits
One does not come to truly appreciate the wretchedness of Rowling's prose, until one reads the series aloud. The adverb-abuse, particularly in the third book is painfully annoying, and I can't give her any sort of free pass on style. To her credit, after the third book, she seems to have figured out how to occasionally slip a sentence or two in with less than 3 adverbs.
The importance of this truth to the Potter books hit me when I was reading one of the many passages in which Professor MacGonagle, a good and benevolent adult character, fails to listen and uses her authority in an unreasoning way
Holy crap that's gotten tiresome after 6 fucking books about "dumb adults".
In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.
But not subtly so. Reading Rowling's subversive message is like stepping in front of a train.
There's another series of books out there called "A Series of Unfortunate Events" - which is also centered around the idea of stupid adults. Only the book is so obviously on the campy side, it's not as painful to watch as the lives of the protagonists get worse and worse on the failings of adults. It's funny, in a black way. The subversive genius of these books is the moral self-doubt the protagonists go through, as they question the morality of their own actions, as necessity for survival. Mister Snickett's prose is a lot more fun to read as well. Rowling had started out on the campy side in her first book, but quickly abandoned that, so now the whole series is situated uncomfortably somewhere inbetween campy and serious.
Rowling makes Harry exceptional only in ways that enable him to fight power, never in ways that allow him to wield it over others.
Two words. Septus Semprum. To me - this is the only interesting thread in the whole series; Will Harry learn the lesson Snape learned (though failed to teach, out of his inability to forgive)? - only it's the same lesson Anakin Skywalker learned.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.