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."
I'm so obsessed with Harry Potter. This was the best Christmas present she could give out... short of the book itself.
What part of the "stuff that matters", don't you understand?
... I was hoping it would be called "Harry Potter and the Back Alley Abortion."
:: goes and pre orders five copies-- one for self, one for wife, one for sister, one for children, one for mother ::
Seriously, why do people keep on reading this stuff?
Hallowed are the Ori.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
It's actually: "Harry Potter: the plot is shallow".
Circumcision is child abuse.
Are you implying that because an English writer will dominate the Best Seller list for a while?
Or perhaps you are concerned about millions of kids who have discovered books can be entertaining thanks to Rowlings books?
Or maybe you're just point out how stupid you are in that you didn't realize one of the biggest selling modern writers is neither American nor are her novels set in America, or that literature and popular books are completely independant?
Seriously, a book has been titled? So what?
I can't believe this is on the Beeb and Slashdot's front pages.
OMG! Wau!
And a good thing, because that title would have embarrassed the proofreader something fierce.
Hail Eris, full of mischief...
E pluribus sanguinem
I was so hoping for Harry Potter and the Closed Casket Funerals. Guess I should have known that that wasn't going to happen.
The OED has "hallow" (the noun form) meaning one of the following:
1. A saint, a god of the heathens, or something belonging thereto (like a relic);
2. A loud shout or cry, to get dogs to chase, or to draw attention;
3. The parts of a hare given to hounds as a reward or encouragement after a chase. (I really hope it's this meaning that Rowling has in mind!)
It's almost certainly a references to the Horcruxes mentioned in the previous book.
... Him ... again.
They are 'Hallowed' magical objects into which "He Who Must Not Be Named" has poured a portion of his soul, to keep himself functionally immortal. The last one we saw did a real number on Dumbledore's hand, so yes, these things will convey serious hit points.
Harry's gonna have to destroy them all before he goes head-to-head with
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 was hoping it was going to be "Harry Potter and the Balance of Earth" and that it would come bundled with a copy
of "An Inconvenient Truth" and some moon sapphires...
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
"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.
"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
Man, that naming formula is even more boring than Star Wars' "Episode NUMBER: VERB of the NOUN".
sic transit gloria mundi
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
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.
For what it's worth, J.K. Rowling intended there to be seven books in the series from Day One --- before she even knew whether the first one would sell enough to get the others published. She has said unequivocally that Book 7 will be the last (except MAYBE someday she'll publish all her unpublished notes that didn't make it into the books, or got changed before they made it into the books, etc.), and she'll stick to it.
If she doesn't stick to it, THEN you're more than welcome to pull out the "money-grubbing" accusations.
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
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.
One of the best comments ever was in a long thread about the technicalities of RAID hardware. Someone wrote four long paragraphs, and halfway through the second, tacked on to the end of one sentence "and besides, Hermione dies in the last book anyways." *
The outrage was tremendous because, before you even realized you were reading a spoiler, you'd finished and comprehended it. Sweetest troll ever.
* No one knows who dies in the last book, if someone does. At the time, Rowling explicitly said she hadn't decided who. It wasn't a real spoiler, and isn't now. Don't freak out.
Anyone who loves or hates any language, platform, or manufacturer, doesn't know what they're talking about.
As the series is sometimes referred to by less successful working writers.
But at least Rowling writes her own books. Tom Clancy seems to have given up writing in favor of licensing his name. Latest "Splinter Cell" book: "Tom Clancy" in big letters at top of front cover. "Written by David Michaels" in small type in grey letters on black background at bottom.
Actually it's from Spaceballs and the quote is: "... now you see that evil will always triumph because good is dumb!"
And pertaining to your arguement, I totally agree that he (Harry Potter) gets through things out of sheer dumb luck, but the fact that he is average gives him a greater appeal to the average kids who can relate to him rather than the typical child prodigy hero who can zap enemies with a cunning flick of his wrist and get out of trouble in the wink of an eye. That wouldn't even work with the storyline presented because most of what happens is DUE TO his inability to get out of certain situations such as sneaking around the school and whatnot. He is also not entirely average because he has proved himself in situations of greater importance like saving a friend or something. A very admirable feat you'd want in a protagonist if you ask me.
Of course you may want a more interesting protagonist like Raislin from the Dragonlance novels. If so, go read them and let these kids read what they like.
They're also, by the way, great books for brushing up on a foreign language
Yes. That's why I buy the British editions and not those translated into my native American. I had no idea that they called sorcerers "philosophers" in the UK!
And the brethren went away edified.
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.
Snape kills Dumbledore!
Oh wait...
_Harry Potter and the Dark, Moist Cave_.
The writer behind the books on that site took it to court and lost. Apparently the court said that there was no plagiarism but also that she (Stouffler) had lied and doctored evidence. Seems like the last name Potter only occurs in later reprints and not in the original ones... Which is pretty damning proof that she was trying to cash in but didn't trust her proof that much. She applead to a higher court but verdict was upheld. My highly personal opinion: Stouffler is a golddigger and you took the bait hook, line and sinker. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Stouffer
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
Not everyone only reads C++ GUI interfaces guides.
Amen to that.
A couple of years ago, I did a little work around the periphery of the publishing industry. At no point was I even close to anybody who was close to anybody who was involved with any of the Harry Potter books. However, a few of the things that were common knowledge then seem particularly relevant now.
What J.K. Rowling is increasingly suffering from is Celebrity Author Syndrome. This, simply put, is a state in which no editor has both the guts and the backing from above to stand up to the author in question and insist upon necessary changes. In some cases, this goes hand in hand with the author being a self-important prick, but that's absolutely *not* an essential pre-requisite (and I have absolutely *no* idea what JKR is like to work with).
Let me explain...
The vast majority of manuscripts that are submitted to publishers by first-time authors are seriously long. They contain repetition of scenes, subplots that are never developed, page after page of background exposition on characters and vast amounts of unnecessary description and digression. Reading the average freshly-submitted manuscript is a pretty depressing alternative; by the time you've waded through all the padding, you can hardly remember anything about the plot and the characters. Now, of course, most manuscripts submitted to publishers go straight in the bin. Occasionally, however, one will be considered interesting enough to pick up. What happens in this case (with some variation across the industry, but the model remains more or less the same) is that some money might change hands and the publisher might indicate to the author that they could conceivably be convinced to publish the book, provided the author work with a designated editor to strip the work down to something fit for public consumption.
This process is often pretty gruelling for the first-time author. They've suddenly got an editor, who they likely see as a pen-pushing bureaucrat and spawn of the devil, demanding that they cut out whole chunks of words that the author has sweated blood over. Emotionally, this is surprisingly difficult. However, most first-time authors who have made it this far have a strong incentive to comply with changes demanded by their editor and will comply. After all, the editor's say-so can kill the book. The publisher looses relatively little from killing the project, while for the author, this could mean months or years of work going to waste. Ultimately, it is very rare that a book is not improved beyond recognition by this process.
However, this dynamic changes massively with a celebrity author (as in, a celebrity who is famous for writing, not a celebrity who has decided to write a book). The publisher suddenly has a lot more to loose if the relationship goes sour. Whatever contractual obligations the author might be under, they know that they'll always have a market for their words elsewhere in the future. If the author is a prick, they can therefore change editors at will and refuse to make changes as they see fit.
However, even if the author is the nicest, most compliant person in the world, the editor is still going to be under a lot of stress. They know, and the people who pay them know, that this author has been lucrative in the past. The editor knows that his future job security almost certainly depends to a large degree on him managing this author right. There is therefore an enormous temptation to just sit back and assume that the author knows best (even though the wisest authors might realise themselves that this isn't the case).
We saw the results of this with the 5th and 6th Harry Potter books (and to a lesser extent, the 4th). The 5th book in particular had a stupidly high number of redundant scenes, most of which could have been excised at will. The bizarre, only-half-realised political commentary surrounding Dolores Umbridge ended up eating a significant chunk of the book without adding anything significant to it. The character could (and in an earlier book, would) have been ha
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.
Actually, most Christians DO get this. It's just the few idiot ones that don't. Christianity is like any other social group on the planet. It's made up of humans, some of which are morons. Unfortunately, Christian morons seem to get more press than those of other stripes.
I realize that there are many here on Slashdot that, for one reason or another, have thier hate on for Christians. I'm not going to address that bigotry right now. But for those that don't hate Christians, but really do think they all want to ban Harry Potter, I recommend going here and reading:
http://lashawnbarber.com/archives/2006/12/21/laur
Not all Christians want to ban Harry Potter. Most don't, and those that do are a small moronic minority.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
If you go to jkrowling.com, click on the eraser and you will be taken to a room you'll see a window, a door and a mirror. In the mirror, you'll see a hallway. Click on the farthest doorknob and look for the Christmas tree. They 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.
from hecklerspray.com
Cause J.K Rowling hasn't written "Harry Potter and the Blue Screen of Death"