Slashdot Mirror
Deathly Hallows / OOTP Movie Discussion
At midnight on Friday Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows was released, ending the ten year run of J.K. Rowling's extremely popular book series. I imagine that there are a few folks here who have already read the book and want to talk about it. Likewise, the movie version of Order of the Phoenix was recently released (a film I was kind of underwhelmed by). So ... what did you think of them? Be forewarned: I imagine the comments will be filled with spoilers.
I have not read a single Harry Potter book! I don't know if I ever will. I dislike something that makes people go crazy and tend to stay away from something like that. I think this is ridiculous! Think about it. Some fantasy book is driving people nuts!
I thought it was nice that something, even if it was something that I thought was junk, could get kids reading for five minutes.
Now, if only we could find a way to make them read books like 1984, Brave New World, Catch 22 and Fahrenheit 451...
"Accept that some days you are the pigeon, and some days you are the statue." - David Brent, Wernham Hogg
I think spelling the title of the book correctly shouldn't be too much to ask.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
...and Hermione manages to push Voldemort out of the Hogwarts airlock and blast him with the main engines...oops, I'm mixing my non sequiturs...
All in all, the Deathly Hallows was a satisfying read. Rowling did a good job of creating the illusion of a Grand Unifying Theory of the previous books and make it seem like there was a clever thread running through them that sustained until the end. She is very good at writing herself out of the corners she paints herself into.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?
After reading the final book, my opinion on the series is still the same: they're extremely entertaining, gripping, and emotionally engaging books, but their literary depth leaves something to be desired. Don't get me wrong - I love the series, but I just wish it had some more depth than the usual good vs. evil tale.
I always use a Star Trek analogy with Harry Potter. It seems like it's all magic, but I'm always reminded of Arthur C. Clark's quote Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The "Room of Requirement"? It's really a Holodeck. Disapperating? It's just a fast teleporter. The wands? A portable replicator (that one's a stretch). There is all sorts of technobabble, especially in Potions...
Anyway, I'm very impressed how well J.K. Rowling was able to tie almost everything together. This was probably the best of the series, but I'll need to go back and re-read them all!
What, me worry?
Ignoring the Aspergers comment which was kind of unnecessary, it's kind of stupid to tell adults to read grown-up books. Go ahead and read classics if you want, I'm sure many of the adults reading Harry Potter have read those as well. But please don't try and tell people that anything popular and contemporary is trash. You sound like a pretentious know-it-all that way. Newsflash: Plenty of the classics you are thinking of are only classics because they aged well; when they came out, many considered them to be trashy as well. In short: contemporary and popular != trash Seriously, HP could very well be taught in middle schools in 60-70 years. Look at Narnia and LOTR, for example. And I bet all you pretentious numskulls will be worshiping it as quality fantasy.
They never really mentioned the fact that Griphook kind of got shafted by that. I mean he got the sword fair and square and then *poof* it just appears back in the hat when it's needed.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
I just read your post, especially the part about LOTR and Narnia, and thats exactly what I've been replying to everyone with throughout this article. Good to know I'm not the only one who thinks HP is contemporary Narnia and LOTR. Also I agree about the people who get bent out of shape because it's popular, it's a "kids" book, and it's hyped up. They are dumb reasons not read it. LOTR was written for children. Narnia was written for children. Books like Alice in Wonderland which some adults enjoy trying to study were all written for children. But that doesn't make them worthless and trashy for adults, and the beauty is that they can be enjoyed on many different levels for every age group.
Unless it's a Tolkein book, in which case your art director can look at it as a finely detailed set of instructions on building a scene.
Check out my sysadmin blog!
I chose fire-crotch over tentacle asian chicks anytime.
Not to mention that the actress that plays Ginny is kinda c&!@#!@#(NO CARRIER
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
Agreed.
My S.O.'s got a degree in Religion, Philosophy, and is currently in grad school, and has (literally) tons of books most people would consider snobbish and high-brow,and damned academic.
She's also a HP fan, and finished the last book on Saturday afternoon, before the ink was even dry.
The point is: if ya like it, read it. If not, don't. But purposefully avoiding something because it's popular is just as brain-dead as seeking it out only because it's popular; either way, you're letting OTHER people make your decisions for you.
While the series is enjoyable overall, there were some major problems that ruined my enjoyment of the books.
Molly Weasley kills Bellatrix Lestrange.
One of the most feared duelers on Voldemort's side is killed by Molly Weasley? Sure, she's a member of the OotP, but the only spells she had shown in the previous books were household charms. It shows JK Rowling's opinion of a mother's love. But that is going too far in my opinion. Made me laugh when I read it.
Snape's patronus is a doe.
I understand that Snape loved Lily, but why does a doe represent Lily? Sure, James (secret!) animagus form was a stag, but that would imply that Snape cared about James. Lily's patronus was a doe, but why would Snape's be the same? I assume Lily's was a doe to represent James (even though a stag would make more sense), but again, that implies that Snape cared about James.
Gryffindor's sword in the Sorting Hat.
I thought that Griphook took it? If he cared so much about it, why wouldn't he protect it in some way?
The Deathly Hallows.
JK Rowling introduces some super powerful items in this book that have never been mentioned before.
The Invisibility Cloak was around since the first book, but it was never noticed that it lasted much longer than normal? I'd assume Hermione would read up on it at least.
Voldemort made the ring a Horcrux without knowing its abilities? With his quest for power, I'd assume he would have at least heard of the Deathly Hallows.
The wand? An unbeatable super weapon was introduced in the last book in order to defeat Voldemort since Harry couldn't outduel him. And the concept of a wand changing owners was introduced to make sure that Harry owned it? None of this was ever mentioned before? Come on.
The Taboo.
So the Ministry can detect when and where a certain word is said throughout the whole country? Why didn't they use it before to find out when someone used the Unforgivables? Or when someone mentioned Death Eaters? Or plenty of other ways it could have been used.
Harry not moving when Voldemort cast a Crucio on him?
I understand not screaming, since the pain can be resisted somewhat. But not even twitching?
The epilogue.
If she insisted on doing an epilogue to destroy any future books, couldn't she have at least mentioned what happened to the other characters? The Ministry? Weasely Wizarding Wheezes? It mentioned that Ted Lupin wasn't living with Harry, but where else would he live if not his godfather?
Consciousness - That annoying time between naps.
1 season per book
You mad
In the book - it isn't settled that Dumbledore *didn't* kill his sister. Harry didn't like to ask in case Dumbledore now knew for certain that he had been the one who killed her during the fight.
You might be right about some of the deaths being quick and sudden or random - but that was the point - they served the purpose that you did not know who would be next. I did not know for sure that Harry (or Ron or Hermione) would survive till the end of the book.
Maybe some folks would liked it all to have ended badly. Me, I appreciated that I didn't know whether it would end well or not till the very end - and having reached the end, I did not wish for a thoroughly sad and depressing end to the tale; however much I had anticipated one.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
12 year old? If anyone that old is reading Harry Potter then I hope they were held back a few years.
This, my high-horsed, elitist friend, is an article about the cumulation of a 10+ year long pop culture phenomenon, in which a series of BOOKS - BOOKS, that one must READ - have reached the heights of popularity normally reserved for much more pedestrian faire.
In this age of ever-deteriorating educational standards, dropping literacy rates, and a overall lack of mental challenges taken up by our youth, a story about jaded teenagers lining up in droves to buy a BOOK would flash right through science fiction and wind up as fantasy - if it wasn't actually TRUE.
Kids are reading, and it is cool to do so. This is a triumph beyond whatever "lack of challenge" you perceive in the writing.
And guess what? The stories are FUN. You're not getting Tolstoy, but you are getting a pretty good yarn with some deeper themes in it. Not every meal must be spinach and cod liver oil. It is OK to have the occasional ice cream.
Get over yourself and your pretentious attitudes.
DG
Want to learn about race cars? Read my Book
No, really?! A purely profit driven film adaption of a mediocre children's book was underwhelming? I never would have guessed.
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
see: star trek. Or just about any "universe" based fiction whatsoever with more than one installment.
And then you have to deal with your enemy's friends and family. And their friends and family. And so on. Better by far to remove an enemy by taking away their reasons, and thus their support.
Reducing yourself to the level of the enemy who hates you will never provide a lasting victory. Rising above the enemy who hates you will. The end result may be the same (you have to kill them anyway) but how you get to that point is critical.
I have enjoyed reading the books and can't wait to finish the last one, but there are a few things that really bothered me.
It was all basically centred around Britain. All the wizarding history and what not. Then, in book four, all of a sudden there are other wizarding schools out there. And a few are friendly with Hogwarts. There are suddenly wizards in Egypt and China, and other areas of the world. With a whole world of wizards, why didn't any of the come to aid them in their struggle?
I know the latest book says Dumbledore didn't get a chance to travel abroad after he left school, but surely a wizard of his stature would have in later years at least communicated with and shared bonds with other great wizards from around the world. Why hadn't he formed friendships with other great wizards? Surely there would be some as skilled as he, or even more so. It just seems that Voldemort was strong enough to be a threat to the entire world. Why didn't Albus send word to other great witches and wizards, telling them he was back, and that they should form a gang to kick the snot out of him?
Just some of my thoughts after reading the first hundred pages of the last book...
J.R.R. Tolkien more or less invented high fantasy as we know it
I understand that you like Tolkien but I suggest you take a look at literary history before you make such a claim.
Epic fantasy/mythology - take a look at the ancient greeks for early work. Ever heard of Homer's Odyssey?
C.S. Lewis also often gets compared to Tolkien though I'd call his books lighter reading and the Christian metaphors are a little bit annoying.
Invented languages? Here's a list
http://www.lib.umt.edu/guide/lang/artifph.htm
By the way I love neither the Harry Potter books nor Lord of the Rings nor Homer's works. All eventually put me to sleep with the rich detail. (I don't enjoy multi-page descriptions of things I'm afraid).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
After reading the book, one thing stuck in me regarding copyright issue. Somehow J.K. Rowlings manage to slip that in the book, the time Bill and Harry discuss about the ownership of the Godric's sword. The goblin always thought that the ownership belongs to the maker, not to the buyer. What do you slashdot lot think?
Work like you don't need the money, love like you've never been hurt, and dance like you do when nobody's watching
Doing a death like this, avoiding the temptation to milk it for drama like a cow on a mechanical milker, that's cliche. Doing the opposite can be quite unexpected.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
I feel the exact opposite as you do. Kreacher came to like Harry for numerous reasons. Harry promised and delivered to finish the job that Regulus had instructed him to do. We also learn that Voldemort had left Kreacher to die in the cave and only escaped because Voldemort had been too arrogant to realize Kreacher could escape. Would you show allegiance to the one who left you for dead, or the one who swore to finish the job of your favorite master? I wouldn't have believed it either before reading the book. I'm sure many people speculated that Percy would come around and stop being a "prat," but I agree with you that the way Rowling did it was in a very awkward moment. He should have come around sometime in the sixth book or early in the seventh. Rowling never left Dumbledore off the hook. You get complete opposite views of Dumbledore early on and at the end you find out that both are pretty much true. It could have been Albus, Grindelwald or Aberforth who accidently killed their sister. Dumbledore was shown to be very negligent of his sister. He had not always been the tolerant person everyone thought he was. Dumbledore gave Grindewald the idea of "for the greater good." Grindelwald is the wizarding equivalent of Hitler and Nazy Germany, who also put people into concentration camps. That isn't really letting him off the hook. Rowling shows that anyone can change if they want to. Claiming that deaths being senseless is not really a bad thing. In what war have you been in where deaths made any sense? Yes, the ending was sappy, but that is to be expected. I would have liked it if she left it out entirely and let the reader come up with their own future if they wish.
If you have something that you dont want anyone to know, maybe you shouldnt be doing it in the first place -Eric Schmidt
"5. Voldemort's incompetence isn't believable. Okay so she wanted Voldemort's flaw to be his arrogance, but he isn't a moron. He knows Harry will come back to Godric's Hollow and yet lays a pathetic trap. He should have at least made it unapparatable. He doesn't exploit the mind link like he previously did to kill Sirius. He also continues to be outsmarted by a 17 year old with no plan. It is like watching a movie where the superweapon has a giant self-destruct button that the hero pushes and the villian doesn't see it coming!"
I don't think he could exploit the mind link anymore. I think Snape protected Harry against him much better than we are lead to believe directly in the text. It's not credible otherwise. Harry had occlumency lessons from both Snape and Dumbledore. And I think they worked.
To put up a teleportation barrier is to shine like a torch in the darkness screaming "beware of trap".
.Robert
I always love seeing or hearing comments such as these. The closed-minded elitism engendered in such comments is honestly pathetic to me. You see it in all sorts of different communities. "If it is popular then it must be crap" is such an inane and useless argument. Was LOTR cheapened in anyway by more people finding it and coming to truly appreciate it? That is complete rubbish, a work of any sort stands on its own merits not the merits of those who find value in it. As to Potter, yes the first few books definitely follow a more juvenile bent, but guess what the main characters are kids. The later books take on a darker tones. You are right that it does contain a lot of coming of age elements, but it also contains a lot of classic literary fair also. Acceptance of difference, the power of love and loyalty, the dangers of extremism. Had you actually taken the time to read the books, perhaps you would understand that. But instead you spill yet more drivel of finding more "shining pearls", but guarding them against other people. Again that is simply a load of shite. If something is a truly great work then you should expose it for the world to see. Would the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel mean anything if they kept it under a tarp? Would Mozart or Beethoven mean something if they were never performed for people to appreciate? If it is truly great it holds up under exposure. The truth of the matter is that more then likely the same percentage of what you regard to be truly good is crap as that which becomes popular. Thinking otherwise just allows you to think better of yourself, stepping on the backs of others and all.
Add to that most of the deaths just didn't make sense. Except for Mad-Eye (and possibly Dobby), basically all the other major deaths were random
Your other points are good. But with this one, a recurring theme in the book is that life is not fair. In her world, often bad people go unpunished and good people die cruelly. I think this is one of the more adult themes of the book that makes the book so appealing.
For example, there is a high probability that this week someone will die in a fatal car crash here in Oregon. The death will be pointless and will probably have no reflection on the goodness or badness of the person who dies. In fact the victim might do everything right and still die - either because of someone else's carelessness, or just plain bad luck. So many "children's" stories avoid this.
Take Hedwig's death, for example. They weren't using owls to communicate any more and there was no need to kill her because Harry could have just left her at the borough. It was a senseless death (and for me the saddest) that only contributed the idea that bad things often happen to good people/creatures, and it's just the way it is.
And then looking at battles, so often in "war stories", somehow all the main characters make it out unscathed either through good luck or good skills. It's very typical in popular stories. It might seem extra tragic that Tonks and Lupin died in the battle, especially after having a newborn, but real-life doesn't spare people just because they are good and have new babies.
This, I think, is one of JK's strongest messages.
...wrote many of his operas for "common folk." The ones which were sung in German were written for the 18th Century equivalent of Vaudeville.
Popular entertainment of the present often becomes the high-brow fare of the future. Of course, eventually that leads us to the world of Idiocracy but that's another story for another time.
Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power multiplied.
...On top of this there are niggling things such as Avada Kedavra being known as the "Unblockable Curse" Is not correct to the best of my recollection. It's "unforgivable", not "unblockable". It's just supposed to be evil and illegal. 5. Voldemort's incompetence isn't believable. He's a super-villain; they're supposed to be unbelievably incompetent. Otherwise a bunch of children/James Bond can't defeat them. But I think you know that. 6. Cliched- Harry martyrs himself and is brought back to life. I don't like this, but for other reasons. 7. Predictable- Who didn't know that Harry was the last Horcrux or that Snape was a good guy, or that Harry wasn't actually dead? Again, fair points, but it's a children's book. It's a book with subtleties, but the basic plot direction has to be accessible to its target audience. See your point 8 as well for this. 9. Unsatisfying epilogue. I rather liked it. It had a nice symmetry with Harry's obsession with his parents; in the end he got to step into their shoes. And it left a lot to the imagination - that's my preference. Honestly she may as well have said "And they lived happily ever after.", and it would have conveyed essentially the same information. Yes. But maybe that was intentional?I think it was an Ok book, and indeed that the rest of the books were Ok. Where people criticise them, they often seem to forget that they were written for children and were phenomenally successful.
I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for JK because she wrote some very enjoyable books, but more importantly because she wrote enjoyable books that kids would read and see their parents reading. If that isn't a good thing for literature generally, then I don't know what is.
Oh, and I get really ticked off with the professional literary critics telling us that this isn't "great literature." Maybe, maybe not. But it's never been for the critics to judge that - our descendents will decide that (with a bit of perspective) and the critics rarely have much insight into it.
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
Providing too much violence can cause problems too though, and can be ultimately ineffective. The problem is, the more violence you cause, the more people are appalled at your actions, and more likely to force you into more violence.
Let's think of it in terms of single people, since that's easier.
Suppose you're in a room, with a bunch of other people, and someone punches you. (Or someone else.) And you decide that you need to respond with violence. (We'll assume that everyone in this room is equally good at fighting, just to remove the "well, I kung-fu them all!" from the list of possible responses.)
If you punch him back, then people may nod approvingly, but he'll probably punch you back, and you have a fight that could go either way. If you lose, you lose, and if you win, there is always the chance he'll hold a grudge and come after you later.
If you can restrain him without hurting him until he calms down, then people will probably nod more approvingly, and no one gets hurt. (This is the "best case" scenario, although since restraining is harder than hurting, it's also admittedly less likely, if you're equally good at fighting. Probably helps if you can convince some other people in the room to help you.) (Note that this still potentially has the grudge problem listed above.)
If you whip out your switchblade, and start violently stabbing him, and/or people who been friendly with him recently, then even if you take him out, everyone else in the room is going to look at you and think things like "That person grossly overacted, and responded with a heck of a lot of violence. Am I safe in this room with him? Maybe we should gang up on him, since having a homicidal maniac in our midst isn't safe." Heck, they might even pull out THEIR switchblades at that point.
Now sure, you could argue that "you just need to apply more violence, i. e. kill everyone in the room", but aside from the practical considerations, (no guarantee that, after everyone is against you, and willing to use deadly force, that you could win) is killing the entire room because someone punched you really your idea of a solution?
I realize that these seem like extremes, but if you replace "people in the room" with "countries", I'm sure you can see the parallels.
Oh, exactly. Violence/Maximum violence aren't useless, but they are quite easy to overuse.
The question is, what is the "right" level of violence to use? Knocking a guy's teeth out will probably make him think twice about messing with you, but may also make him harbor a grudge, and/or may make other people watching nervous of the level of violence you're willing to go to, to the point that they begin to feel unsafe. And if the guy has a buddy, or a friend, or a younger brother, who feels he needs to avenge his brother's "honor", then you'll have to repeat the same performance possibly many times.
The problem of course is that most peoples' response to violence is violence in return, so if you respond with a lot of violence, you either need to have it be so overwhelming that no one ever thinks about (or is able to) come after you again, [which is historically hard] or be prepared for a bunch of violence coming back at you at some point.
It seems like a better way to deal with the guy punching you is to figure out "why is he punching me in the first place? What makes punching me the most attractive option for him at the moment?" If you can change the circumstances that make his reasons valid, then as long as you can avoid the first punch, maybe you won't have so many problems later.
Now obviously this can break down. (It's no more a panacea than violence is.) For example, an extreme case might be that his reason to want to punch you is "there is something wrong with his head, and he wants you unconscious so he can kill your children without you stopping him". You may find yourself in a situation where you don't have much choice. I'm just saying, to quote the cliche, (which is a cliche for a reason) that violence tends to breed more violence. So even if you ignore the morality side of things, and just go with pragmatism, most people have friends/allies/etc, so even if you violence them into submission, it's often preferable to find a solution that doesn't require you to watch your back for their buddies afterwards.
The sword can only be obtained if the obtainer does so in a brave manner, which I would say the gobbo did not do.
A blog about stuff.