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."
Our friendly Webster dictionary says: (and I quote) "Etymology: Middle English halowen, from Old English hAlgian, from hAlig holy -- more at HOLY 1 : to make holy or set apart for holy use 2 : to respect greatly : VENERATE synonym see DEVOTE" Interesting -- unless there's something that I'm missing, from earlier books in the series? Thoughts?
"The Hallows could refer to the Four Hallows of Arthurian legend. They are intimately connected to the Grail and ultimately probably go back to the Four Treasures of the Tuatha de Danaan of Irish myth.
8 09&st=0
The Four Hallows are:
The Cup or Chalice
The Baton or Wand
The Sword or Dagger
The Coin, Disc or Pentacle
I think we were right all along in connecting the horcruxes to the four elements. These hallows are associated with the elements, and match up quite nicely to the remaining horcruxes:
Cup (HH)
Baton or Wand (RR)
Sword or Dagger (GG)
Pentacle (SS locket)
Just my two knuts!"
Read here: http://www.leakylounge.com/index.php?showtopic=36
They're also, by the way, great books for brushing up on a foreign language: they're translated into just about everything and the way each book is successively harder gives you a chance to start slow and be reading at a young adult level by the end.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
In the mirror, you'll see a hallway. Click on the farthest doorknob and look for the Christmas tree. Then click on the center of the door next to the mirror and a wreath appears. Then click on the top of the mirror and you'll see a garland.
Look for a cobweb next to the door. Click on it, and it will disappear. Now, look at the chimes in the window. Click on the second chime to the right, and hold it down. The chime will turn into the key, which opens the door. Click on the wrapped gift behind the door, then click on it again and figure out the title yourself by playing a game of hangman.
My biggest issue with Harry Potter series is that it depicts the protagonist as one who has no genius, is not hard-working by any standards, has bigotry - in short - an absolutely average person.
The protagonist then goes and defeats a much more able antagonist (whose biggest fault is bigotry, by the way) with nothing more than - love of his mother protecting him.
My biggest issue with such a story - that too tailored for young children - is that the protagonist is not anywhere close to the perfect role model for children - and they are impressionable at that age. I am not asking for the protagonist to be a genius - I am just saying there should be some real stand-out feature in the protagonist - in a children's book. I couldn't find it in this book.
When I read the book, it felt as if the political correctness of the current times have enveloped the fantasy world too.
YMMV.
rajmohan_h@yahoo.com
If he were a superman, that would send the wrong message too: "Oh, well, he can do that because he's really clever and powerful." He's not lazy, but he's not particularly studious either. He actually has to work much harder than Hermione to learn the same things (most of the time, though, he's up to his ass in schoolwork and other problems as well.) On the other hand, he's no slouch--he still manages to be near the head of his class. And he pays dearly for all of his flaws--he makes so many mistakes in Order of the Phoenix that he almost gets everyone killed, and in the end, Sirius Black pays for it with his life.
What he does have is loyalty, fairness, kindness, generosity, and courage. In every situation, that's what carries him through. In standard fantasy parlance, he'd be a Paladin. The books are about the power of love vs. the power of hatred (ironic that Christians try to ban these books--they just don't get much of anything, do they?) His mother's protection is just a metaphor for that--but his mother's protection, and Dumbledore's, is gone now. In the final book he will have to grow up and face Voldemort alone. He's going to have to work like a trojan to be able to pull it off. But Rowling has set it up so that he's going to be tested most in the very qualities that have carried him so far. All is not what it seems. If Harry behaves like a jerk in the final book, he will lose a great deal, even if he wins the final battle.
Oh, AMEN, brotha, I was right there on that blasted web page with you. I'll probably get modded troll for this, but that little climax to his misapplied rant about freedom cost Stallman at least one person who might ever take his hyperactivism seriously. He may have done a lot of good for Free Software, and I'm not going to just dismiss everything he says from now on because of it, but stuff like that rant seems to indicate that he's incapable of 1) factoring in reality or 2) caring about people rather than ideas when something gets his ideological goat.
Phew. I've been waiting for this outlet for a long time. Thanks for providing the opportunity. :)
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
If she continues writing, I wonder if she'll continue to use the HP universe for future story lines. She has put a lot of effort into building it and it seems to be as cohesive as Tolkien's Middle Earth (though perhaps not as expansive).
Of course if she isn't completely idiotic with her money, the work that she has done on Harry Potter will have her and her children set for life financially if she should choose to retire once the last three movies are complete.
My God! It's full of eval()'s.
I pretty much gave up after the third or fourth one one (whatever it was called). From what I could see, the stories were all the same : Incompetent but famous Harry Potter gets into some kind of mess, only ever succeeds in getting out of it by accident or when a deus ex machina pops up, ends up failing miserably during the boss level at the end but gets miraculously saved by his friends/teachers/mentors/family/pets. Everyone rejoices. Yawn.
I suppose this is amusing to younger readers, but the terrible story lines are really painful to me. Which is a bit of a shame since the universe of the books is quite fun.
Of course things may have gotten better in the later books, but by now I stopped to care.
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
Let's see... I'll give you an analysis NOT based on any preview of actual book, just following what we know so far:
Dumbledore is indispensable character in the series. In most cases he is good "spiritus movens" behind the scenes (Voldemort is the evil one). It must turn out he either didn't really die or his death will not prevent his new appearances (she can always pull out some magic artifact or spell that modifies the effect of the killing spell, or that lets him remain present as ghost or something). However, this will pose difficulties in explaining why then Harry's parents are, well, dead without any buts.
Furthermore, it is clearly implied in last book, in the scene when it happens, that Snape killed him according to their (Dumbledore's and Snape's) previous mutual agreement and arrangement (i.e. if Dumbledore is struck by a non killing, forever tormenting spell, which in fact he was) out of mercy, not hatred (Snape is constantly put in position of suspect, only to slap Harry and readers later for being prejudicial, shame on us!). Therefore, Dumbledore, in one form or another, must show up to clear Snape from convictions for his own murder. If Rowling persist to keep Dumbledore dead, it is probably Snape who will take his place as head of anti-Voldemort coalition. However, this leaves Harry without last fatherly protecting figure, which OTOH may be a part of "large picture" central idea unrolled throughout the story: following Harry's stepwise growing up, from a child into an independent, self-sustaining adult (at which point this story starts losing its magic... not 'Wizardly' magic, which is only a decoration and prop for plots, but the magic of childhood) in a fantasy world.
Psst! Hey, kid, c'mon, try it. All your friends are doing it. It don't hurt no one. Here, just read a couple of pages...
/daughter is 6
While not a fan of Harry Potter (is derivative of other children's books and treats magic the way Star Treck handles science), they have gotten my daughter away from basic picture books and started her reading actual novels. I can't complain about that. Now if only, her reading skills were a little more advanced so that I didn't have to jump in and help her figure out new words ever two minutes. What's wrong with our schools? Don't they teach reading in Kindergarten?
I drank what? -- Socrates
Thank you. Though I think only the images from pictures in the headmaster's office have that special ability...communication I mean.
Dumbledore is dead. That doesn't mean he's not a part of the next book. He had to die to force the final confrontation between Harry and Voldemort, otherwise it would always be Dumbledore saving Harry from his own fate.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
Far be it from me to tell people what they should like or dislike. But it seems to me that many of the most strident critics of the Harry Potter books are those who insist on measuring them by inappropriate paradigms, in this case the canons of dramatic criticism. Literature as a whole needn't abide by rules that are instrumental to mimesis (represenation), important as they may be to the medium of drama.
In learning to critique, we oughtn't lose the art of listening.
I have engaged many people in debates over the merits (or lack thereof) of the Harry Potter books. More often than not they are not simply left cold, as Fred_A seems to be. They are positively offended and outraged by them. I think this ponits the way to some of the chief merits of the books, a point I'll return to in a second. But first I should point out that literary merit is an atomic thing that can be measured on a simple scale. There are many kinds of merit a story may have, such as richness of detail, beauty of language, cleverness in plotting, humor, psychological insight. The Potter books are remarkably rich in some dimensions, and simplistic in others.
When it comes to language, for example, Rowling is clever, but is no J.R.R. Tolkien. The great pleasure of rereadign Lord of the Rings for the 99th time is the sheer beauty of the writing. For example, look up the passage where Frodo takes a last walk around Bag End, before leaving it to his despised cousins the Sackville-Bagginses. It is a masterpiece of writing; evocative and far more poetic (as is often the case with Tolkien) than the book's attempts at verse.
It is also true that the Harry Potter books are by no means masterpieces of plotting, to put it mildly. Stories of this sort seldom are. I agree completely with Fred_A's condemnation of the books... but only if we are talking about the movies. Here the books mimetic weaknesses are on full display, and few if any of their diagetic (narrative) strengths.
The books' greatest strengths are humor and psychological insight. And its important to note that the latter is not necessarily displayed according to the methods of drama, which demand that such insights be shown by the action of plot events on the characters. Narrative arts have no such fundamental constraint. Which brings us to why Harry Potter is so roundly hated by the cultural canon crowd.
Real life is not dramatic. Unlike a play or movie, most acts are not prompted by motivation, but by habit. People in power, even good people, exercise their power for the most part mindlessly. Nobody knows this better than children, who have no power of their own and must live in accordance with rules set by others. Many of those rules are set for the childrens' benefit; some for the convenience of their betters; others are there just because they've always been there.
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. In various ways we are told that this character is admirable, intelligent and good; but these qualities are never shown in her actions towards Harry. In a drama this would be completely wrong. This apparent inconsistency had always bothered me, but then it struck me that this quite true to life. As a parent, I don't always take time to make the right decision, and often make the wrong decision because it is easier. On reflection, it seems right that all the adults Harry encounters regularly exercise their power unreasonably, even the ones who have his best interests at heart. It is equally necessary that Harry defy them, even though sometimes this turns out to be a terrible mistake.
In other words, the message of the Harry Potter books is subversive.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Amen again. I have been getting my nieces and nephews books for Christmas and birthday gifts since they were born. (I also get them a cool toy, I'm not a complete jerk. Although they ONLY remember that I get them "stupid" books, not which books, not even that they got toys too... but I digress) I would get them "classic" books like RL Stevenson, Tolkein, Dumas, Baum, L.Ingles-Wilder, Lewis Caroll, etc. I would even try to read to them at appropriate age levels, but if it wasn't TV or video games, they are not interested. Then came the Harry Potter books, and they actually _enjoyed_ reading. Who would have thought? Now they _ask_ for specific titles (mostly dragon stuff right now), if they haven't already gotten those book from the library, and it pleases me. But _I_ didn't get them reading, Ms. Rowling did.
More music, fewer hits
My own pet theory is that Dumbledore is a Phoenix animagus. Death would hardly be the end for him.
End of lesson. You may press the button.
You may recall how Granny Weatherwax beat the Vampyres[sic]?
The only thing you can accurately describe as "Scotch" is a sticky tape made by 3M. And it's
Wouldn't it be a hoot if JK turned out to be a Pratchett fan?
One thing I find ironic is that the Zeeland, Michigan Public Schools took Harry Potter off the shelves. The Zeeland Christian Schools (run by a relatively conservative denomination of which I'm member) kept them on the shelves.
I know this because my mom was a teacher in the Zeeland Christian Schools and is currently a media specialist (aka librarian) for them. She likes the books quite a lot herself. She had nothing to to do with the fact that they're still on the shelves though.
I'd say that some Christians try to ban them, but far from all. In fact, I'd say that quite a lot of them like the books.