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.
Milk left at room temperature goes bad on page 298.
SNAPE KILLS DUMBLEDOR!
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
...as it barely mentioned the Order of the Phoenix.
The latest film has the same problem as all the other Harry Potter films:
They focus only on the epic tale of Harry versus Voldemort and not on the far more epic story of Harry's emotional journey to be ABLE to face (and presumably) defeat Voldemort.
If you see the film with someone who has never read the books, they tend not to care one iota bout any of it and the reason is all to clear: the characters never develop. They never change. They never become who they need to be in order to confront the horrible evil that is taking over their world.
The books are amazing because, while there is an epic story of good versus evil, the reader is brought along for the ride to grow alongside the main character. But the movies watch the action from a safe distance and only really focus on the parts that have action.
Jory
Deathly Hallows fortunately played down the anti-intellectualism of the previous books. Harry admitted he should be able to heal wounds by magic (but still didn't admit any fault of his own for not knowing), Hermione's wide knowledge proved very useful on their little trek, and even Ron decided he should look cool in front of the kids at Hogwarts by spouting off a random fact he'd heard from Hermione. That was good, I liked that.
ResidntGeek
I think spelling the title of the book correctly shouldn't be too much to ask.
I always mod up spelling trolls.
I know this might prove controversial, but I have always compared Potter to Rings.
In the way they are both multi-volume, long, rambling engaging fantasy stories which good stuff to read, but in a terrible writing style
Don't get me wrong, I *am* a fan and have all of them - but neither are great well written works of prose.
Whats the betting she'll revisit the muggle/wizarding world in a couple of years? There is waaay too much money available not to in my humble opinion, its just too tempting a cash cow now.
First off, I'm just going to assume everybody who clicks into this thread has read the book, because otherwise half the thread is going to require spoiler warnings.
Rowling's style of writing is definitely not where her strenghts lie, and everybody I know who has refused to read Harry Potter has used this as a reason. However, I think people who say this are cutting off their nose to spite their face. What she lacks in writing skill, she more than makes up for in enjoyable, well crafted characters, and amazing plot. Deathly Hallows is by far my favourite of the series (7, 5, 4, 6, 2, 1 - fot those who are interested).
I was pretty sure that Snape was on the side of good before I started reading, but by the time he was made Headmaster, I had actually figured that I had been mistaken, and was wondering how she was going to have a decent ending with him as a bad guy. The last few chapters were magnificently brought together, with payoff after payoff after payoff.
The only disappointment in terms of plot, I felt, was that not a single Slytherin stayed behind after the evacuation of the school. I know, they are supposed to be cunning and self serving, but Harry was almost put into their house. Surely there must be a handful of Slytherins who, like him, are borderline and would have enough bravery to stand beside their schoolmates against the deatheaters.
However, that aside, I am very happy with the book, and am glad to see I didn't waste my time on a series just to have it thrown in my face at the end (*cough* Dark Tower *cough* Wheel of time).
To steal from Joel McHale, who would have thought Hermione was a dude? I certainly didn't see it coming!
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
I enjoyed OOTP. The book is overly long and probably the weakest of the series, but what I find most interesting in the films is watching Daniel Radcliffe et al growing into their roles. OOTP is an incredibly long book and, like all the movies, it's like reading the book in fast forward. The book's better than the film, but it was still very very good.
I finished Deathly Hallows this morning after spending all of yesterday ploughing through it.
And I really, really loved it.
JK Rowling has been very clever with the books and I don't know if the entire series has been foreshadowed, but throughout the final book she drops little hints that I, if I had actually been paying very close attention to, would have figured out before the climax.
You can scoff all you want that it's a kids book and you'd rather die than read it and if this is the case, then I pity you. I felt exactly the same way until I tried them, and it's very rare that a book can make me laugh while I'm reading it.
Now that it's all over I feel very sad that there might never be another author in my lifetime who can create characters that fit together so well.
Summation 2
If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
Where is that guy who'd die defending what I had to say when I need him?
Maybe it's that I read waaaay too much speculation about it, all with interesting theories on how Harry would defeat Voldemort without having to introduce trick wands.... but I just felt that she took the easiest possible route out of the story, giving characters dramatic about-faces when necessary. I mean... Kreacher suddenly becoming Harry's biggest fan? Cop out. Percy's sudden change of allegiance, apology and starting to joke? Excuse me?
I also felt that she let Dumbledore off the hook, and his character would have been much more compelling if he had killed his sister (or something similar)... or maybe, just maybe, we didn't have to have Dumbledore re-appear and explain everything? I mean come on. 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, they had no purpose in the story and didn't advance the plot in any major way. The only sacrificial death was Harry, and he didn't even die (and don't get me started on the overly sappy epilogue).
Generally, I think the book was missing most of JKR's trademark wit, that made the rest of the story so enjoyable... and had too much of her maddening 'hand of god' habit of introducing new magical concepts to get the characters out of sticky situations instead of them having to figure a way out themselves.
...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.
"The Sword of Gryffindor presents itself to any worthy Gryffindor." I assume it fell out of the burning Sorting hat.
I just finished the book this morning, and I must say, you did a heckuva job, Rowling. All the ends are wrapped neatly, the book didn't get too long or short winded on any subject. There are a few things you might have to backtrack a page or two on because it's confusingly worded. For example, I had no idea who escaped Gringott's with the sword at first. Harry denies to himself that Lupin and Tonks have died by saying they were just sleeping, and in my tiredness I thought it was literal. I think that pgs 180-400ish might get kind of long, it's a lot of arguing and moving about, usually little action. The last chapter, I wish, was longer. Who's Draco married to? Who raised Lupin's baby? I figured for sure that Bill and Fleur would adopt it, but it doesn't friggin mention it, and then Harry suggests "uh, let's have him live with us!" or whatever, and the kid is 19! Poor Snape. Did the books ever explain how Lily ended up with James, then? I can't recall any more. Also, I thought this book 7 would explain the howlers "REMEMBER MY LAST, PETUNIA." from 5. That's a loose end!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Defeated Dumbledore.
You don't have to kill, just defeat.
Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?
Why? Are you saying that Slashdot is filled with people with Asperger's Syndrome? That's highly unlikely. There are plenty of people here who wish they had Asperger's, even going so far as to self-diagnose. The truth of the matter is that while Asperger's is real, it's nowhere near as common as internet message boards would have you believe. It is a good scapegoat for people who never learned how to interact socially with other people.
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.
What really spoils the story is that Harry Potter dumps a hot asian girl. I mean come on, give the audience some credit. I can believe in kids whipping up spells, but dumping a hot asian girl, now that is just the realm of fantasy!
Monstar L
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?
Dugg down for kuro5hin source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Potter_and_the_ Deathly_Hallows
Spoilers for those who need them. The link does not pop because Slashdot strips out target=_blank.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
It seems to me that the climax of the entire series hinged upon three choices that Harry made in this book. They epitomize everything Rowling was trying to convey: that the choices individuals make are ultimately what determines "good"ness or "evil"ness, and they are not concrete extremes that guide actions but rather a result of choices that are made in every aspect of life.
1. He had to decide to face Voldemort willingly, accept that he is going to die, and understand that he is doing this to save his friends. Courage and selflessness are the keys to defeating the emotions that power Riddle: greed, selfishness, and fear.
2. He had to decide, after being struck with the Killing Curse, to return. Death is easy. It is the easiest thing every living organism *will* do -- life (and staying alive) is a constant struggle not to die. When in King's Cross talking to Dumbledore, he had the opportunity not to go back; he had the chance to take the easy route. Again, he had to decide to return to save his friends.
3. When finally facing Riddle, now that both were free of any sort of magic to protect themselves, he had one final choice: To take life to protect his (Avada Kedavra) or to show mercy, compassion, love, even to his gravest enemy. By choosing Expelliramus, even after being explicitly told numerous times NOT to use this particular spell, he truly sets himself apart.
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.
If Snape could enter Grimmauld Place, then why didn't he told the Death Eaters where it was? Voldemort should be aware that wherever the Headquarter of the Order was, Snape knew it, and with Dumbledore's death Snape would become a secret keeper.
Isn't it obvious? Snape wasn't working for the Death Eaters, he was working for the Order and Dumbledore. This was a major plot of the book. I really do not understand why you are confused about this.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
This was hinted to in the book in that Gryffindor's sword can only remain in the possession of one who's valor and need of the sword are true. One cannot simply possess the sword out of greed, which is how the goblin Griphook acquired it.
How could Dumbledore best Grindenwald if the latter had the Elder Wand? also, how did he not defeat Voldemort completely with the Elder Wand when they dueled?
Again, the answer was hinted at in the book if not a running theme throughout the series. Dumbledore admits to Harry that they were both skilled wizards, but that Dumbledore was perhaps a bit more skillful. That fact, taken together with the theme that runs throughout the books that it is not what skills or magical items you possess so much as what you do with them that is the key. I think that is your answer.
How did Dumbledore's painting know of the plan to take Harry off Private Drive, in order to counsel Snape?
I suspect someone in the Order other than Snape is in communication with the painting.
Yes, you do. If all you potterheads went back and re-read the books, over and over again, the rest of us could get on with more important things, like having a row over GPL2 vs GPL3 and emacs vs. vi.
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.
Oxygen is pretty popular amongst humans. There is in fact very broad agreement on the matter, and persuasion to "the cause" usually involves the persuadee being held under water until (s)he agrees...
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.
My "wrong ending" that I was giving people yesterday:
Harry and Voldemort fight a duel at Hogwarts in front of the students and faculty.
Voldemort hits Harry with a sex-change spell and Harry becomes Harriet.
The fight ends with that.
Voldemort and Harriet get married, go bowling every Friday night, and live happily ever after.
So far, noone has believed me at all.
Or something like that.
Jolyon
Please read my Canon EOS tech blog at http://www.everyothershot.com
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.
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.
The 1400s called. They want their prejudices back.
I picked up a copy of the first Harry Potter sometime before the first movie was released - I had the idea that I was going to read the book first. Somehow I managed to scan my eyes over all the pages of text. Something about a boy and his broom. The movie had been released on DVD by that point, and I eventually rented it.
I also picked up a copy of the second book before the movie was released. I was only able to get 50 or so pages into it before I was lost. Didn't bother to rent the movie.
Tried to read Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring before the movie came out. I was lost in the first chapter.
I do alright with non-fiction books that I've an interest in, and was reading John Taylor Gatto's A Different Kind of Teacher the summer after I finished teh college, and all my reading troubles suddenly made sense. Mr. Gatto realized over the course of his 30-year teaching career that most of his 7th-graders were incapable of reading beyond the level required for a standardized test. To prove this for his readers, he suggested going to the library and borrowing a copy of the classic, All Quiet on the Western Front, read the first 20 pages, and return for a question on the text.
I went to the library, checked out the book, and scanned the first 20 pages as best I could. I saw the answer to Mr. Gatto's question, but only because I'd read the question before going to the library. But he did have a follow up question too, and I had no idea whatsoever what was going on in this particular book.
Gatto says that he found that most his students didn't 'make pictures' to go along with the words comprising book's stories. Not because they can't, but because the way reading is taught in the Feral Government's schools trains children not to make pictures, but to read for the (multiple-choice) test.
Finally - why I couldn't (and still can't) read fiction. I've been spending these last few years trying to get my mental-picture-maker working, and when I succeed someday, then I'll pick up the Harry Potter books again. Until then, I'm not going to frustrate myself with fiction anymore.
Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
www.teslabox.com
Nope. The product was the book that came with the rock. It was a novel way to sell a moderately funny book.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
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.
The Book: I thought it was the best in the series, honestly. The book is so different than the first six though, but I think it's for the better. If Harry had just gone to Hogwarts and then realized in April that he hadn't yet destroyed all the Horcruxes, I would have been very disappointed. The way Rowling wrote the last book, it was very believable how hard their journey was. The trio fought, got bored, got cold, split up, adventured, almost gave up, and persevered. All very believable for a nine month journey if you ask me. And everything was wrapped up nearly perfectly. I loved the Battle of Hogwarts and the final battle, but the epilogue didn't really do "19 Years Later" justice. Obviously Harry and Ginny get together, obviously Ron and Hermione get together. They have kids, the circle completes, blah blah blah. I want to know what Harry did for 19 years? Become Minister of Magic? Become and Auror? Teach Defense Against the Dark Arts for a few years? No answer but we do learn that he has a son named Albus Severus so it's all good, right?
Anyways, the book was the perfect ending to a series many of us grew up with. I remember the first time my grandpa shows me the book and said "Hey, this is a story about a boy wizard, and they play games on broomsticks!" That was nearly 10 years ago and I remember it so fondly. Harry and me grew up together, and now his story is complete. I'm done with college now, am working in the real world. But how I still wish I was a wizard, going to school at Hogwarts, playing Quidditch, and hanging out with Harry, Ron, and Hermione.
The Movie: Order of the Phoenix is my second favorite novel in the series, after Deathly Hallows. However, the movie kind of stinks. It's more in line with the last two, thankfully, but I thought the book was so good that maybe I had such high expectations. Umbridge was the star of that book, such evil but clearly not with Voldemort. It was a great concept and I think it worked wonderfully, in the book. In the movie, however, she's just an obstacle in the hero's path and not that interesting of a character. The final scenes at the Ministry were also a let down, and differed a lot from the book. I understand that the movie series now is pretty much on it's own, but it's hard for me not to compare.
I'd rate the book a 10/10 and the movie a 6/10.
All in all, thank you J.K. Rowling for a magnificent set of novels, you are a master storyteller.
Reviewing just the first hour of video games.
It's easy to substitute "mostly bad" with "can't possibly be good," but it's inaccurate. Incorrectly paraphrasing an opponent's claim to falsely imply a universalization is a popular fallacy. ;-)
Education refines our judgments. Lots of people call education "snooty." It's a popular cliche. Not that educated people won't like Potter --- it's just that they ought to provide criteria other than popularity.
I do think your thinly veiled analogy to racial prejudice is over the top. Even dumb, maybe.
Society is nothing but collaboration.
So what you're saying is that it has sex with other children-to-young adult-range series of fantasy and adventure books?
My goodness. What an aberration. What a sin against the will of God.
+++ATH0
Ironically though, kids aren't reading. Yes, they're reading Harry Potter, but various reports on the topic of reading in the generation who have grown up with it suggest that it isn't translating that into a general interest in books (One random article on the topic grabbed from a quick look at google). I'd be very interested to see what happens in 5 or 10 years, once the craze really goes away - will there be any lasting change, or will the whole "reading" malarky vanish into the night?
seems to be that it is well worth reading at the very least as enjoyable fiction. Plenty of peer-reviewed papers have been published on the subject. I suggest you verify that you know what the fuck you're talking about before turning up your nose at it.
"Profanity is the last refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker" -- Oscar Wilde
+++ATH0
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.
It was 1963, kept the book below the desk, but I'm sure the teacher noticed. Also quite a few other SF books. We had a great library...
So Argumentum ad populum is not a Wizarding spell like accio or expelliarmus?
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
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.
I was disappointed by the epilogue as well. Before I read a page of it, I already knew Harry and Ginny would get married, and I predicted the kids named James and Lily too.
It might have been nice to see some vignettes--just a paragraph or two touching the courtship, wedding, newlywed argument, landing a job, etc.
As for the OotP movie adaptation, the only change that bothered me was that Harry handed over the prophecy to Lucius instead of stalling for time ("Yeah right, as if you're not going to kill us anyway"). I think the other changes streamlined the story for the movie screen without compromising its spirit.
Wow. I absolutely love reading Tolkien because of his use of language; it has a melodic quality that I've not found in any others' writing.
I particularly love to read Tolkien aloud, because this allows the richness to come to the surface. If I'm not reading aloud, I often go too quickly and miss the details and hidden corners of Tolkien's sentences that, while they don't necessarily advance the plot, are integral to his books as works of art. There is no such care or attention to detail in Rowling's words; hers make a workmanlike product that conveys a decent story but bears little resemblence to Tolkien's art.
I guess whether or not one finds Tolkien's language easy to read depends upon experience; I grew up reading and re-reading Tolkien, so his style of language is like an old friend, immediately recognized and warmly greeted.
He has a 6-digit UID. That 8-digit number you were looking at is the post number, old man.
Harry Potter discussions belong on Slashdot exactly as much as Star Trek, The Simpsons, Serenity or any other popular form of entertainment enjoyed (at least in part) by Slashdot readers. "News for nerds. Stuff that matters" doesn't just mean high-tech. After all, Slashdot started as just some guy's blog, with stories he found interesting.
I'm not aware of any scoping document for Slashdot that defines precisely what should and should not be here.
or Burroughs even
Yeah, I grew up on Edgar Rice - those Barsoom books made me a life long fan of reading!
Good on you - Uh, wait, you mean William don't you?
Who is John Cabal?
More likely than you think, click here to find out.
Soap box, Ballot box, Jury box, Ammo box. Use in that order.
I felt the author did a poor job with the Deathly Hallows and that the book's overall quality was mediocre. First I'll start off with what she did well:
m .
1. Snape as a hero. I doubt it was that surprising for most people, but her explanations of his motives were very plausible.
2. Dumbledore's history was intriguing.
What she did poorly:
1. Character consistency. Neville goes from almost a squib to holding his own against death eaters, where does this come from? Hermione becomes stupid. Hermione knows that there is a spell that can destroy horcruxes and _Crabbe_ of all people is capable of casting it, yet Hermione doesn't consider it worth learning as it is too "dangerous". Clearly running around without a plan and hoping a special sword drops into her lap is a much more intelligent choice.
2. Magic System still isn't explained. We have muggles, purebloods, mudbloods, halfbloods, and squibs and yet why certain people can do magic and others can't isn't even hinted at. Honestly the rules of her magic system are so poorly explained and adhocced that it can almost be considered it's own deus ex machina. Anytime someone is in a sticky situation that couldn't previously be solved, just change the rules of magic! See house-elves, wand pseudo sentience, and transfiguration limitations. I don't know about you, but I would like a magic system that is deeper than speak latin + wave wand + made_up_rule_that_conveniently_solves_plot_proble
3. The use of house elves as deus ex machina- Oh no Harry Potter is trapped in a dungeon where apparition is impossible. Hah house-elves can teleport where wizards can't, problem solved!
4. Magical battles are _boring_. Yes boring, if you are good you spam stupefy/expelliarmus, if you are evil you spam Unforgivable Curses although mainly Avada Kedavra. Occasionally someone does something mildly clever but this is the exception even for supposedly intelligent characters! No one does anything clever like "accio testicles", or transmogrifying the ground under them to something dangerous, or even something as simple as using a high-powered lumens to blind. Instead it's cast their faction's spell over and over and over. On top of this there are niggling things such as Avada Kedavra being known as the "Unblockable Curse" yet hitting it in midair with stupefy causes it to "explode into red and green fireworks".
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!
6. Cliched- Harry martyrs himself and is brought back to life.
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?
8. It had the plot of a bad rpg- Find the magical item that will help you complete your quest. Now destroy the villain's enchantments. Congratulations, kill the final boss. Scroll credits.
9. Unsatisfying epilogue. Now this could potentially be cleared up in a different book but it would be nice to know what actually happened to everyone. We aren't even told what Harry did afterwards. Did he become an auror, a quidditch player, or did he do something else? All this emphasis on non-human's rights by Hermione and no mention of if wizarding politics changed. Nothing is told about the main characters other than who they reproduced with and how they named their children (also not a surprise). Honestly she may as well have said "And they lived happily ever after.", and it would have conveyed essentially the same information.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
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...
Logic called, wants to know if you want an appointment.
Something is not good because it's popular, it is often true that popular things show bad taste, BUT and that's where your logic fails (or rather, where you fail logic), that doesn't mean that if something is popular then it's not good. Something can be good AND popular.
Or rather
if p then g
being false doesn't imply
if p then not g
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
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
The same reason we can all program in 1s and 0s if we wanted to, but we use compilers instead. With a superior tool available that can do everything the inferior one can do, the inferior ability/tool atrophies in favor of the superior one.
They are both Monomyths.
There are 11 types of people, those who know unary and those who don't.
Apparently not, since Dumbledore in fact utters the exact words "You were the seventh Horcrux, Harry, the Horcrux he never meant to make."
The United States of America: We do what we must because we can.
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
AbeBooks is an international clearing house for the sale of used and rare books. 100 million books on sale from 13,500 booksellers in 57 countries.
At last count, AbeBooks had sold 55 Harry Potter books priced at $1.000 or more. In August 2005, AbeBooks sold probably the world's most expensive Harry Potter book when a buyer spent $37,000 ($20,000) on an exceptionally rare first edition of Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone. Most Expensive Harry Potters Ever Sold on AbeBooks
To date, the Harry Potter books have sold more then 300 million copies worldwide in over 200 countries and the books have been translated into more than 60 languages - only the bible can better those statistics.
In France, Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix became the first English language book to ever top bestseller list but the series has permeated almost every corner of the atlas.
The books have been translated into most Eastern European (from Albanian to Ukranian), East Asian (Cambodian to Vietnamese), and Scandinavian languages. Some countries even have books in several dialects - for instance, in Spain it is possible to buy the books in Spanish, Basque, Catalan and Galician.
But it's possible to find even more obscure translations such as Faroese (with a mere 60,000 to 80,000 worldwide speakers) and Kalaallisut (the dialect of Greenland spoken by about 54,000). Some of the books have even been translated into the dead languages of Latin (meet Harrius Potter) and Ancient Greek, the latter translation being the longest work in the language since the novels of Heliodorus of Emesa in the 3rd century AD. The Wild World of Harry Potter Books, The Harry Potter Series
The literary critic, the academic, doesn't quite know what to make of Harry Potter:
Literary manias expire with horrible suddenness. Uncle Tom's Cabin was the novel in 1852. In America, at the height of its popularity, steam-driven printing presses exploded, trying to keep up with sales demand. But, two years later, Harriet Beecher Stowe's book was dead on the shelves. Last year's book. Harry mania...and there may be more
The only problem with this particular example is that it isn't true. Stowe's novel sold well throughout the nineteenth century. Stage productions and later films embedded Stowe's most memorable images in the in the American consciousness. Simon Legree. Eliza crossing the ice. In the 1930s the WPA's Federal Theater Project produced a stinging, unsentimental adaptation that took the story back to its anti-slavery roots.
Perhaps the key to understanding Rowling's appeal to children, to adolescents, is that she like Twain, like Dickens, like Lemony Snicket, is an uncompromising moralist.
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.
The female is all but non-existent in Tolkien's world.
There is a kind of abhorrence that a woman might be compelled to directly engage the evil which surrounds her.
Tolkien ideal is the structured pre-industrial - pre-war - society of rural England.
Rowling's world is as ramshackle, crowded and intensely vital as Dicken's London - or more properly the England that would emerge from the Blitz.
...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.
She is now teaching Divination at Hogwarts, and rocking Prof. Neville Longbottom's world every night.
Too much Law; not enough Order.
Actually, according to the Guinness World Record people, L. Ron Hubbard beats J. K. Rowling, with his work translated into 65 languages: "This new world record, officially verified as 65 languages, exceeds the previous record of 51 languages set in 1997 by American author Sidney Sheldon. It also tops the unofficial count of 63 for "Harry Potter" novelist J. K. Rowling and the 64 languages translated for "The Diary of a Young Girl" by Dutch teenager Anne Frank."
Spoilers:
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
All I know is, if I find a magic hat, and I reach my arm in and pull a sword out. I'm keeping it. I don't care who says they own it.
(For the record, I was diagnosed in the US, by two independent doctors.)
These days, diagnosis by a doctor based on external symptoms is wholly unnecessary - in theory. fMRI scans will reveal Asperger's and all other autistic spectrum disorders very nicely with a very high level of accuracy. The problem with such tests is not accuracy but expense and difficulty in finding a place equipped to carry them out. Neurologists who are sufficiently far up on such diagnostic methods, given that they've only circulated from conferences in the past couple of years, are extremely rare. So whilst a symptom-based diagnosis is not required, a mechanistic diagnosis is unlikely to be in anyone's near-term future.
(However, if Slashdotters do encounter a research group wanting to verify the published results, I'd say go for it. This would give you as close to definitive proof as you can ever hope for in medical science.)
Asperger's is problematic in that there is no cure and no therapy for most of it. It is also genetically as harmful as the gene that produces Manx cats. The gene for Manx cats is additive, so eventually not only does the tail go, but so does a large chunk of the spinal cord. The gene for the Autistic Spectrum seems to be similar - if your parents both are on the Autistic Spectrum, you will be further down the spectrum. Eventually, you have nothing but mentally deformed cabbages. Asperger's can be beneficial and should be utilized as such. Play to your strengths, not your weaknesses. However, it is also a very dangerous genetic trait and should not be trusted too much. Like a Ring of Power, over-use will lead to betrayal.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
It isn't as if the goblin tricked Harry into making the agreement under false pretenses.
Well, the goblin did assume that Harry would act in bad faith, and so made the deal planning to steal the sword and strand them in Gringotts. That sounds exactly like "false pretenses" to me.
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
In book 2, maybe it's a deux ex machina, after that, it's more like a recurring convenient feature.
kinda like turbo boost in Knight Rider
Check out my sysadmin blog!
No. All along, the intention of Voldemort was to create six horcruxes (horcruci?); the seventh part of his soul was to remain in his body.
In fact, I seem to remember Harry making the same mistake and Dumbledore reminding him that they're only looking for four (not five) more horcruxes in HBP.
Um, if you think the books don't talk about racism you're an idiot. There are frickin pogroms in the last book against muggle-born wizards, with the inane claim they 'stole' their magic.
The prejudice against non-'pureblood' wizards (Whatever that means, because wizards are human in the first place and they all know it, and almost all of them have muggle relatives somewhere in their known ancestory.) has been there from the start, but only became official government policy once Voldemort [re]started running things.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Yeah, there's something really odd going on there, but I'm not entirely sure it's what people might think, that Grindelwald was involved with the Nazis in some way.
Why? Because there was the explicit point made that most British wizards didn't know about his 'take over the world attempt'. Now, there's a rather large disconnect between the wizarding and muggle world, but to have British wizards unaware of WWII is rather absurd, especially if WWII was secretly being run by a wizard! I mean, if a wizard was doing the invading, wizards would have had to fight it off, or he could have walked into England and owned it two weeks later with a few well placed unforgivable curses.
I suspect that, instead, Grindelwald took advantage of the chaos of WWII to attempt a takeover of the wizarding parts of places that Germany conquered. I mean, think about...in Vichy France, who was in charge of magic? I bet Grindelwald was. Germany wasn't working for him, and he wasn't really involved in the war per se, he was just walking into the wizarding areas that the war effort was effecting and saying 'I'm in charge now' and there was no effective force to stop him.
Even in places that hadn't lost to the Germans might have been in enough disorder to take over, which raises the interesting question: Did Dumbledore attack Grindelwald to stop him in general, or did Grindelwald finally attack England and Dumbledore only acted to defend it. (Implying he was okay with the rest of Europe being conquered, but had a change of heart when England was attacked.)
OTOH, Krum's reaction to the Deathly Hallow's symbol was certainly intended to parallel a Nazi symbol. Although note that what Krum described happened at Durmstang, not Germany in general, so it's possibly it's only the school where that is incorrectly interpreted as his symbol. (Technically, do we even know that Durmstang is in Germany?)
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
When the first few books started to garner attention, there were a lot of misguided attempts to pigeonhole them in the popular media. Many compared Rowling to Roald Dahl, which is stylistically and structurally ridiculous.
But she shares one part of her formula with Dahl: the exercise of adult authority is depicted as bad, and she gives us (supernaturally) strong children who defy authority -- even well meaning authority.
The other thing she does is she marries cynicism towards authority with sentimentality about human nature. It's the same formula that makes Casablanca a classic movie. Generations have learned to square the circle of "cool" from Rick: it's cool to be cynical and alienated, but go to far and you're not on the inside, you're on the outside. It helps a lot that Casablanca is not an "art" movie, it's well crafted and aimed at the masses, which is probably appropriate.
The next element in the Rowling formula is taken from the classic English detective story. The first four books are relatively self contained and scrupulously "fair" mystery stories. Armed with the information available to the hero, you could beat him to the conclusion. The fourth book is a novel in itself, and a bridge to the second half the the epic, in which the books are longer, and rather than self-contained, are installments in a longer story arc. So I think of HP as consisting of five books: 1, 2, 3, 4 and 4+5+6+7. Each one of these works follows the rules and many of the conventions.
The final element of the Rowling formula is its borrowings from speculative fiction. Rowling does not tip her fantasy hand until volume 7. The first six books have an appeal that is taken straight from hard science fiction.
Consider: the magic in Harry Potter works consistently. It operates according to certain laws, some well known, others at the current state of knowledge suspected. People who have at least some talent can, by studying the well known laws and by practical application, extend their capabilities. The laws and their practical application are organized into discrete areas of study, which are taught in a way much like engineering. In fact it is important to remember: Newton was an alchemist. Many of the branches of study in Harry Potter are in fact historical, but obsolete sciences.
The magic in Harry Potter is depicted in a much more scientific way that FTL travel is in most science fiction. The appeal of heightened human control of nature is much the same in Harry Potter as it is in the hardest of science fiction. The only thing missing is any hint of social scientific consistency with the "technology" of magic. For example, if wizards can do magic, why are some richer than others?
There's a lot of things in Harry Potter we've seen before. But it doesn't make the works unoriginal or derivative. It's a brilliantly syncretic work, the product of a magpie like mind that collects the oddball name here, the bit of occult trivia there. They have their stylistic, and occasionally narrative faults, but they aren't something cobbled together from an easy formula any hack could reproduce.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
I'll be 36 in October...you must not be a fan of sci-fi or fantasy books. Actually, one of the most interesting things I noticed on Friday night/Saturday morning was the huge percentage of people in line that appeared to be in the 17-20 age range.
I guess it makes sense, since most of them were between 7 and 10 when the first book came out. They've been reading the books for over half of their lives, in some cases. In the best of all possible worlds, J.K. Rowling may have inspired some future writers out there to create something as engaging as these books (or Heinlein's, Spider Robinson's, Asimov's, Saberhagen's, Piers Anthony's, Stephen King's, Harry Harrison's...)
If you think the books are stupid, that's fine. Just understand that J.K. Rowling didn't get rich because everybody thinks the books are stupid, and understand that the bookstores and wal-marts weren't full of 10-year-olds.
If you ever come across a book or better yet, a series (I highly recommend any of Spider Robinson's "Callahan" books, BTW) that draws you in and makes you wish you were a part of it, maybe you'll understand the allure here. Not everyone has that much imagination, and not everyone can stand being jeered at by people who are "better" than that, but you don't have to be a completely nutty fan to enjoy a good book.
"Murphy was an optimist" - O'Toole's commentary on Murphy's Law
"He who can destroy a thing, controls a thing." --Paul Atreides, Dune
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.