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 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.
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.
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'm just happy kids are reading. When I was about 11, I fainted as I was serving mass as an alter boy at morning mass, hit my head on the marble step and spent two nights in a hospital. I picked up a copy of "A Stone for Danny Fisher" that some alter cocher had left behind. It was a shit book, but it started me on a lifetime of reading that has served me well personally and professionally.
I just finished an excellent ghost story called "A Heart-Shaped Box" by Joe Hill. It wasn't exactly Nabokov, but it held my interest over a couple of evenings, and gave me that lovely shiver that finishing any earnest novel gives its reader.
I've talked about "first books" with others. Some started with "A Boy's Book of Baseball" and some with "The Life of Abraham Lincoln". One started with the great "Jazz Country" by Nat Hentoff (a terrific teen book about a young boy who develops a friendship with a black trumpeter and learns about being human). All of them found some tale, some words, that created a thirst that would never go away, a thirst for the stories of others. It's the way we create our own story.
No, we can argue the riches that J K Rowling has amassed or the desire of certain twisted people to keep the Potter books out of the hands of children lest their own children strive to learn a spell to make them disappear. But I'm glad that kids are reading. And maybe, just maybe some sad adult who never had that thrill of enjoyment from a tale well told will pick up Harry Potter out of curiosity and find their own undiscovered country of words.
You are welcome on my lawn.
Ms. Rowling writes acceptably, and unlike far too many others managed to balance the desire for an "epic" story with one that is "fun." She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary, and regardless of what your high-school teacher says, that's a good thing.
As to fantasy books being "childish" -- so are sports, and yet a majority of adults in the civilized world will get quite excited over at least one "professional" sport.
The 1400s called. They want their prejudices back.
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.
She didn't bother trying to mess around with any deeper commentary
I'm sorry, but that's one of the silliest things I've read by someone who enjoys the books. She says the books are about death, but I see them as being about racism, particularly the Nazi genocide type. The Dursley's are all about child abuse (not the physical kind, but mental); there is corruption in government, huge amounts on freedom of the press, etc., etc.
One of the reason's I love the book is because of the social commentary she brings into it without ramming it down your throat.
Take note, take note, O world,
To be direct and honest is not safe.
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
see: star trek. Or just about any "universe" based fiction whatsoever with more than one installment.
Shakespeare is popular. His plays were written for the people in the street, the common men and women. I think you'd be hard pressed to claim that they're not high art, that they don't hold a pretty good mirror to ourselves, even after five hundred years.
I don't make the claim that Rowling is on par with Shakespeare, but the point stands. Popularity is a completely seperate thing to quality. Confusing the two is poor thinking.
Popular taste is popular taste. Calling it low taste is elitism, pure and simple. It also fails to substitute for informed criticism.
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
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
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.
Spoilers:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
...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