ok I know its been like a year since this thing came out, but I re-read it recently and it still stinks. Can't believe I waited for four years for this piece of junk. Honestly, The woman had all that time this was the best she could do. I ended up getting frustrated with Harry time and again, he goes from being a humble sweet kid to an arogant jerk.
anybody agree, or disagree?
Posted by breyerchic04 (Member # 6423) on :
thinking of some of my friends who were that age when the book came out, they did the exact same thing, so i don't think she was too far off.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
He's a teenage boy. Most of them go through an irritating stage.
In fact, we're lucky Rowling still gave Harry dialogue. In my experience, an occasional grunt (accompanied by an optional eye roll) would have had more verisimilitude.
Edit: Beaten to it.
[ July 12, 2004, 11:29 PM: Message edited by: imogen ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote: anybody agree, or disagree?
Yes.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You mean, being a teenager?
That being said, yeah - I found book 5 to be something of a let down. I don't know why, exactly - it just didn't hold me enthralled.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I disagree totally. Harry's angry in the book because he's been through a lot of stuff through the other 4 books. Who can blame him from being in such a bad mood?
Posted by xnera (Member # 187) on :
Just finished rereading it this weekend, myself. I enjoyed it. Yeah, Harry's not always pleasant, but it's in character for him, and true to his age.
It's a good book, but not great. I still feel that the ending is a letdown. Something about the whole battle in the Ministry of Magic just feels off to me, or something. Just didn't enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the others.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
The fact that you dislike a character doesn't mean that the quality of the writing has decreased. Perhaps JKR's intention was that you become frustrated at Harry's actions, much the same way as Harry is frustrated by his life? In other words, JKR may have been trying to evoke Harry's mood in the readers, and I think she was sucessful at doing that.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
It wasn't just Harry's mood swings.
Spoilers: * * * * * * * * * * * *
Sirius went from a cool uncle to a sulking juvenile who acts nothing like the key resistance fighter we are led to believe he was in the days before James and Lily's deaths.
And his death took on an "oh, by the way...Sirius dies" quality that just irritated me.
The whole story just seemed an exercise in being anti-climatical (?)
Although I'm taking bets Percy is secretly working undercover for Dumbledore. At least I hope so - I'd hate to think he really is that one-dimensional.
-Trevor
[ July 12, 2004, 11:54 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I liked that he wasn't the same old Harry. I felt that it was one of the more sucessful things about the book.
I didn't like the way Sirus died as well. It seemed that she sort of threw that in there for more punch in the scene. I respct the fact that she was trying to show that the kids hard been very, very lucky up to then that no one had died, but I wasn't satisfied with the way it happened. I had to reread it to see what had happened...it didn't even register the first time through!
I agree with the decision to make Harry bratty, but I don't see why Sirus suddenly became 14 again. At least that was how he was acting.
I hope boook 6 is better.
Kwea
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Trevor -- I'll take your bet, Percy's not smart enough or subtle enough to work undercover...
What do you wanna bet? Shall we say... a copy of OSC's next book? Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
As I don't read OSC, it would be in poor form for me to make the wager.
Although, a copy of JKR's book...that has potential.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who made the same evaluation of Sirius's behavior.
-Trevor
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Sirius's behaviour made sense. He had no family. He lost his best friend. He's trapped in a house he hates after years of being free from that. And he got out of prison just to be put in another prison. Of COURSE he's going to act like an adolescent! He has these people hanging out with him, then they have to leave and come and go and leave him all alone with his thoughts. Sure he's going to sulk! He can't be heroic all the time. That's just not realistic.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
Kinda hard to bet on a copy of the next Harry Potter book, since we'll probably both buy it anyway...
Problem with this kind of bet though is that we probably won't be able to settle it until book 7 comes out, and that's gonna be years and years... so you'd have to promise to make sure to post in, oh, 3 or 4 years so I can collect on the bet Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
Trevor-
good point about sirius. Nail on the head there. Someone whom is supposed to be that powerful shouldn't have just died, but I think they way in which he died leaves an opening for some sort of ... he's not really dead ... come back later. A sort of Daytime television thing.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
I would also like to say that I think it is very funny how you guys are trying to rationalize JKR's writing by comparing it to reality. Give me a break. We want are heros to have human qualities so that we can better relate to them, but no one likes an ass. Also Sirius never had any family or friends in books 3 and 4 so now in 5 he is all the sudden going to start feeling pent up about it. come on. The book stunk.
[ July 13, 2004, 12:31 AM: Message edited by: mickey_mouse ]
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
How else would you ever judge a character other than comparing it to reality?
No matter where (world or location) a book is set the characters should still be true to life. And in Harry's case, that means an adolescent boy.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
Are you serious?! Its a fantasy novel. FANTASY. You understand what that means right? And Harry is its hero. A hero is something above and beyond what we are all capable of. Does superman falter, any chinks in batmans armor, what about spidey? Yeah sure they are trip every now and then but the fact of the matter is they always get back up the stronger for it. Its what we demand from our heros. Yes they need a few human qualities but They are all super-naturally larger than life. People continue to read all of these stories because it provides a brief escape from reality, not reality itself.
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
I loved book 5. It was the first book Iread taht got im "into" Harry Potter.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mm, there's really no need to be insulting to people who disagree with you.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Oh please.
You're fighting the greatest evil your world has ever known, a creature's whose very name strikes so much terror in his victims they refuse to speak it...and you're still going to act like a juvenile throwing a temper-tantrum?
You're obeying the orders of the greatest, wisest and most powerful wizard around and you pout and sulk, even in the face of "You Know Who" and the reign of terror he's caused? That you've lived through?
Sorry, I just can't buy it. I've considered the "he's faking his death and is going to make a surprise return" but I think that's more wishful thinking on my part than any real possibility.
-Trevor
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Does superman falter, any chinks in batmans armor, what about spidey?
Superman doesn't falter, which is why is is so boring. B O R I N G.
Posted by mickey_mouse (Member # 4533) on :
rivka -
please do not mistake sarcasm for insults. That goes for everyone here. I love this forum, the last thing I would want is for people to get upset, personally, by things that I say.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
mm, good.
mph, he does if the show is Lois & Clark. Probably why I keep reading the fanfic.
Posted by reader (Member # 3888) on :
quote:Are you serious?! Its a fantasy novel. FANTASY. You understand what that means right? And Harry is its hero. A hero is something above and beyond what we are all capable of. Does superman falter, any chinks in batmans armor, what about spidey? Yeah sure they are trip every now and then but the fact of the matter is they always get back up the stronger for it. Its what we demand from our heros. Yes they need a few human qualities but They are all super-naturally larger than life. People continue to read all of these stories because it provides a brief escape from reality, not reality itself.
I hate to break this to you, but you're confusing comic book super-heroes and the human, flawed heroes that comprise fantasy novels. The examples you give - superman, spiderman, batman - are all comic book super heroes. Harry Potter is the hero of a novel. If Harry was perfect, THEN the books would be boring.
And according to one of JKR's interviews, she purposely wrote Sirius' death without fanfare, almost as an accident, to try to show that in real life, that's often how death is - without any big sirens blaring, just a sudden absence of this person from the world. I'm not sure if I've formed an opinion on whether this was the best way to deal with Sirius' deat in the HP novels, but it was intended.
Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
quote:Are you serious?! Its a fantasy novel. FANTASY. You understand what that means right? And Harry is its hero. A hero is something above and beyond what we are all capable of. Does superman falter, any chinks in batmans armor, what about spidey?
You obviously need your definition of "hero" re-worked. A hero isn't flawless and a "hero" isn't exclusively a person who is above and beyond in the sense of super powers- get your mind out of the comic books and focus on what true heroism is.
edit: Reader got there before me.
[ July 13, 2004, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Azile ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I don't really care as to why she wrote it to be bland, boring and uneventful - the fact of the matter is, it was bland, boring and uneventful.
-Trevor
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Also, Spidey is great because he does falter...that is why Peter Parker is still Spidey, because of his very human mistakes.
Also, Superman has made mistakes, even lost his powers.
I don't think all fantasy has to be the heroic, all-powerful Conan stuff...where he is perfect, and if he makes a mistake there is no real concequence to it..
I think it made for a better read...why would ANYONE want to read 5 books where the main protaginist never changes, or is always perfect.
Not a great book, but not too bad...IMO.
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
Sirius is human. I think his reactions were very natural given his character. Especially when you consider that he was NOT fighting Voldemort, he was sitting at home watching as all of his friends risked their lives and not able to do anything about it.
And then he gets a chance to do something about it, something that no one can fault him for doing because he'll be saving someone they all need. OF COURSE he takes it. Would you have done any differently in his place?
Posted by Toes (Member # 4603) on :
I agree that the fifth book felt a bit like being followed around by a really annoying kid. I liked that though. I liked that Rowling showed a different side of Harry. I recently read it again and was not nearly as annoyed as the first time. I suppose I paid more attention to how funny Fred, George, and Ginny were. In my opinion Rowling made this the most annoying book so far, but also the funniest. Essentially, I look at the 5th book as a bridge between the beginning and end of the series. In a way I was expecting some loose ends and possibly bothersome plot twists, so in the end, I liked it.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I am not Sirius so yes, I would have done things differently.
That doesn't mean I agree with the 180 degree turn from wise, older figure to sniveling juvenile brat with a chip on his shoulder.
Or am I underestimating the overwhelming fear and terror that "He who must not be named" generates?
-Trevor
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
I didn't like Sirius's change in behaviour either at first - but I can accept it more now after seeing The Prisoner of Azkaban. For some reason, the movie (more than the book) conveyed to me the impression that Sirius always had the irresponsible and immature streak within him.
In a lot of ways, he never grew out of his school boy days - and that is exacerbated by all the goings on in Book 5.
Posted by keither (Member # 6681) on :
OOOKAY first, you should know by now that everything that every character does in these books is for a reason. Harry was sulking as a direct result to the fact that he normally knew EVERYTHING that was going on around him, and then all of a sudden, he is left in the dark. it turned his world around, and that affected his entire life. Sirius died for a reason, a simple and maybe not a full reason for this is the fact that Harry is starting to relate with Luna some more, this, i believe, will lead to a relationship with luna that will end in shambles. this relationship will end due to the reasons of Luna's weirdness and Harry moving on with life. as we all know, ron and hermione will get together, because they already bicker and make up like they are married. it is inevitable that Harry and Ginny will get together, they make the perfect couple, and ginny is no longer afraid of harry. i dont know why you all complain, you should know that everything works out, and that harry will succeed, it is JUST THE DETAILS you are complaining about. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm rereading this right now, and I'm struck by how wonderful it is. There's layers. Like an onion has layers.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
keither: I doubt it will be as simple as all that.
If you are right, it will be the most boring series ever written.Ever.
Kwea
Posted by zgator (Member # 3833) on :
Onions make me cry.
Posted by sarcasticmuppet (Member # 5035) on :
Sirius was a time bomb since he escaped from Azkaban. Seriously (Siriusly!), He was wrongly accused of killing his best friends, spent twelve years getting his soul beaten up by the foulest creatures in existence, escaped to expose the man who WAS responsible for the death of his best friends and FAILED, and spent a year in the house where he suffered who knows how much emotional abuse at the hands of his parents only to die trying to save the only person in the world who loves him. If you ask me, he's had a pretty crappy life..
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I'm reading HP 5 to Junebug and Super-K.
Everyone is enjoying it right now.
Posted by Anna (Member # 2582) on :
Not forgetting the fact that Sirius is half of the time alone with the portrait of his dead Mom who hates him and a mad house-elf.
[ July 13, 2004, 08:55 AM: Message edited by: Anna ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
JK Rowling made it clear from Book 3 that Sirius enjoyed taking risks. Look at what he tried to do to Snape--this was not a responsible person. And he's spent most of his adult life in circumstances that were, shall we say, not conducive to the development of great maturity.
(That said, he was my second favorite character after Lupin, and I was crushed when he died...it seems too mean for Rowling to orphan Harry twice.)
So I think it's quite understandable and certainly what we could have come to expect from Sirius that he would have done this. I mean, he was consistently taking risks for Harry in Book 4, coming to Hogsmeade and all. If Harry was in danger, there was no way Sirius wasn't going to come and help him out...
Jen
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People continue to read all of these stories because it provides a brief escape from reality, not reality itself.
This is the common charge made of all speculative fiction, and it's bogus coming from both SF's supporters and detractors. The supporters are generally people who like swords and elves and don't care about the sub-creation aspects of the literature. These people miss out on most of the joy of good SF.
Detractors use it to dismiss SF - it's just escapism, not some thousand page novel about a single day in Dublin. It's the reaction of the literary snobs who were horrified that Lord of the Rings was voted Best Book of the 20th century in England.
Both sides miss the point of fantasy, sci-fi, and other speculative fiction. Someone called it putting real toads in an imaginary garden, and that's as good a way of describing it as anything. What SF in all it's forms does is allow authors to investigate and speculate on what aspects of the human condition are inherent to it, and which aspects are caused by the limitations of science (or lack of magic, or whatever the SF author has changed about the real world). Alternatively, this can be done with the whole world - these things are very different, but see how much remains the same? I believe much of the deep satisfaction derived from Tolkien is related to this aspect of his work.
Some of the themes explored better in SF than anywhere else include the nature of power (Tolkien, Donaldson, Brooks), gender roles (Card, Le Guinn, and a host of others), acceptance of differences in others (JKR, Card), and the nature of belief (Pratchett, Donaldson). There are scores of other examples for each of these, and scores of other themes. Then there's Dune, which does almost all of these and then some, but which is hard to categorize.
Of course, any good literature can be used for escape, and a lot of bad literature, too. But good fantasy, which JKR has produced, provides both escapism and some thematic statement on the human condition. The fact that she expects readers to accept her heroes, flaws and all, is a plus, not a minus.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I figured out why everyone is reading this book. Movie #3 came out, everyone reread that book #3, and...yep, middle of July. Just on time for the general reading public to get to #5. Posted by Chris Bridges (Member # 1138) on :
People continue to read all of these stories because it provides a brief escape from reality, not reality itself.
A brief escape? The book weighs ten pounds!
And I disagree, for reasons that Dagonnee already covered perfectly. While I might enjoy turning my brain off to enjoy a potboiler novel, the books I return to are ones that teach me something every time I read them.
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Yes, Sirius was a risk-taker from the beginning. A bit arrogant, probably, given his pureblood upbringing and privaledge. Reckless. That is utterly consistent in the books.
Also, I recently visited my family, staying in the bedroom of my youth (different furniture, different arrangement, etc. but STILL), and it was very easy to slip back into the old patterns of teenaged behavior, even with my husband there and children to look after. Funny , that.
Seriously, when I get together with my whole family (older sister and brother) I'm six again. Raising my hand and bouncing in my seat at the dinner table, just trying to get a word in edgewise. It's vaguely disturbing. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
quote: Are you serious?! Its a fantasy novel. FANTASY. You understand what that means right? And Harry is its hero. A hero is something above and beyond what we are all capable of. Does superman falter, any chinks in batmans armor, what about spidey?
Don't confuse character development with plot development. Comic books don't have any character development because they're all about keeping you entertained without making you think. If you don't like thinking, you won't like reading most well-developed novels.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
At first I thought OotP was awful. I hated it. I couldn't stand the fact that she just offed Sirius. Harry - don't even get me started. I thought he was everything I hated in kids, and I thought of him as a kid. Still. I disliked the adults, I wanted to smack Hermione, Ron could go shove his broomstick up his blind arse, and Ginny all of a sudden became cool? I didn't understand what was going on and I hated it. The other four books I saw, I understood, they resolved (mostly) for me.
Then I thought about it for a long time (read: last July until today). And I realized that that was what the characters were going through. Put yourself in their situation: no one's telling you anything. You're locked in your own house with people taunting you and flaunting (sometimes inadvertently) that they're actually doing something. You don't have all the information. How do you react to this? Badly. And that's how I reacted to the books. I don't know. I think I didn't like the book because I was feeling the confusion and annoyance of the characters. I didn't like not having a real end. But that's life. And I had to realize that while Harry epitomized everything I hated about kids, he was one! I guess I fell into the trap he hates - making him the savior and not knowing the boy beneath. And you can't always understand life. It's just not possible.
Now I love the book and need to get home so I can read it again. Though I still loathe Ginny and wish her happiness with Goyle, I think Hermione could use a good slap, and Ron, well, Ron can still shove it
And yes, heroes falter. Overcoming the faltering is what makes them heroes.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Coming in woefully behind to say this:
I thought Sirius's death particularly well done precisely because it was so anti-climactic. It seemed very real and gave a great reinder of how fragile everything is. We've seen Harry (and other heroes) cheat death so often, I thin it's easy to forget how deadly the world can be. There was video of an Iraqi being gunned down circulating the internet a few weeks ago. You see a guy kneeling in the street, aiming an RPG, then a couple of tracers and he falls over dead. That's it. No glory, explosions, or John Woo death ballet. Just a living breathing person who a second later isn't.
In fact, Rowling hints that this is one of the most terrible things about Arvada Cadavera-- it's so sudden. Death (I have seen it) is most often like that. A quick theft perfromed by slight of hand... even in cases where it isn't. Like Harry, we have to sit and mull and it takes time to convince us he's gone... "that can't be *it*," we think, "surely there must be more than that simple fluff and he's gone forever?"
The answer is "no. That is all there is. That's all it takes." Hug your loved ones... they can be gone that fast and for that little reason.
of course, that is all undone if she brings him back... but I found it one of the more eloquent and painful parts of a truly excellent book.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
It is only to be expected that Harry Potter should have some annoying, boorish tendencies--after all, he is his father's son, and his father was a bully who tormented Snape unforgiveably.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Not to mention being raised by a family of boorish bullies.
Posted by Jenny Gardener (Member # 903) on :
I loved that Harry was unlikable in many places. I've found him mildly unlikable all along. He's not a "nice" kid. Which is what makes him interesting.
Posted by kwsni (Member # 1831) on :
I can't get through it again. I get to the Umbridge woman, and have to throw the book across the room.
Ni!
Posted by Olivetta (Member # 6456) on :
Exactly, Becky!
If *I* was Harry, I'd have been moody/angry/ALL CAPS, too. I mean, CRAP!
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
I have to have my say (I know I'm late )
J K Rowling set Harry Potter up perfectly. He seems like the perfect kid. Like every good kid seems like the perfect kid, like Sirius seemed like the perfect surrogate father and James like the perfect father. Hogwarts was a haven of safety, and the magical world was a happy place to live, with an exciting dark past. Then she strips everything away.
I love katharina's words: Harry Potter is like an onion. It started off being a smaller onion with a few happy layers. Now it's a much bigger onion, with a multitude of facets, terrible and wonderful. Book five dealt with everything: growing up, the frustrations of not being involved, the mistakes made by the adults around Harry, alcoholism (winky), the true suddeness and feeling of death and the huge implications of it, evil, good, fear. And also she dealt with the little things; girlfriends, friendships, leaving school, teachers relations and loyalties, taking exams, succeeding and failing. The wonder and the sorrow of life all wrapped up in the pages of a single book.
I love book 5. I think you can tell. I love its onion layers, ready to be unpeeled. And I love its characters, who all have flaws and all make fatal mistakes- fatal, not oops I slipped up a little and I nearly got hurt, its I slipped up and I killed my god-father. I slipped up and I nearly got many others killed. Sirius makes mistakes. Dumbledore, who everyone thought was infallible, makes mistakes. It is their failings that make the characters, and the books, great.
Sirius dies so quickly you can't believe it. That's how things are. Harry can't believe it, and neither can we.
Harry's change is painful to read, I know. What happened to the endlessly resourceful little boy? But Harry is a true person, a true hero. He pulls through, every time. He makes mistakes, like anyone, but he still manages, with the help of his support group, to pull through and make jokes. A true hero never stands alone.
It's not like real life because most of never have to deal with the worst of what Harry goes through. No one tortures our friends or family, or attempts to kill us. It is an escape, but not a fluffy one.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
<applauds teshi>
<donkey> not everyone likes onions, though... </donkey>
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
How about a parfait?
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I'm surprized nobody has mentioned the Voldemort connections to Harry's behavior.
1. Harry "got something" from Voldemort as a baby. Why shouldn't that include some anger (or should I say venom?) along with his Parcel-tongue?
2. Throughout the book, the psychic connection between Harry and Voldemort is very important. Who's to say that Harry's behavior isn't actually a manifestation of Voldemort's emotions?
3. Ultimately, Harry has to kill Voldemort. As Bellatrix Lestrange pointed out, the Unforgivable Curses don't work unless you really enjoy hurting someone. Harry will have to really enjoy killing Voldemort, if he uses the Avada Kedavra on him.
(Is anyone else as thrilled with the word-play in "Avada Kedavra" as I am? Rowling really is a master of word games.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I liked Avada Kadavera the first time I heard it. Just waiting for the play on hocus-pocus, now.
And I don't think Harry will kill Voldemort with an unforgivable. I think he will turn one of Voldy's spells back on him.
Just a guess.
Dagonee
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Disney movies will do that to you.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
Hocus Pocus is widely beleived to already be a twist on the words: HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, which are part of the Catholic Mass (This is my body). I don't think Rowling will mess with them.
Of course we'll have to wait for (at least) the next book to find out, but I think Rowling is going to make the story get darker until the very end. I do think Harry will use an Unforgivable. That's just my bet.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think he will use one, but not to kill Voldemort. He'll crucio someone to get information, or use the AK or imperio curse. This will be to show us he can do it.
Then we'll get to see the character development that makes him not use it on Voldemort. If he uses it to kill Voldemort, we're at the end of the story and don't get to see him redeem himself. Unless there's a whole dark side Harry thing, which would be cheap.
Again, pure speculation with no basis except a gut feeling about the pace of the narrative.
Dagonee Edit: Did not know that about Hocus Pocus. You're probably right about her avoiding it.
[ July 13, 2004, 08:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Salaam (Member # 5239) on :
The harry Potter books are very interesting but they aren't amazing. They are fun reads and good books but compared to something like Lord of the Rings or other classics, the pale in comparison. However, I can look over every flaw I find in Rowling's books when I see the lines of kids to buy her books, Anything that will get kids back into reading I'll fully support. We need more authors like her that will enthrall both young and old and show kids that there's more to life than tv
[ July 13, 2004, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: Salaam ]
Posted by Space Opera (Member # 6504) on :
I totally agree, Salaam. Has anyone else noticed the trend of great new series for kids since the HP series came out? My son is currently reading one about owls, which he loves.
space opera
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
And Artemis Fowl is pretty good, too.
I don't think Harry Potter approaches Tolkien, but it's far more than a mindless page-turner.
Dagonee
Posted by Alexa (Member # 6285) on :
Here is my Harry Potter Hope:
I always loved the original Star Wars. Darth Vader was such a bad character..so evil, yet he started off with good intentions. DV was a corrupted good guy, second only to the Emperor. I loved the dynamics. I wanted to see the first three Star Wars in order to watch that transformation. I was severely disappointed--so so horribly disappointed!
I want Harry Potter to fix my Star Wars Expectations. I want Harry to become Darth Vader. I want him to kill Voldemort and glory in his power only to fail in his attempt to kill the married Ron and Hermoine. Maybe Harry can become like Darth Vader and serve under Voldemort and try to kill Neville.
Since Neville does not have the mark or the dark side in him, he can resist evil and defeat Voldemort by either killing Harry (Voldemort may have part of his reoccurring life in Harry) or returning Harry back to the right side of magic.
Wither way, I want Harry to become evil. I have never seen that done to my satisfaction, and the process of a fallen hero has always fascinated me.
Posted by Glenn Arnold (Member # 3192) on :
I think the Harry Potter books are truly amazing. They are so much more than children's books.
She claims that the morality of the books is a byproduct of the storyline, but the depth of the message, from racism and slavery to such basics as right and wrong, are really presented in a powerful and realistically complex way.
Whether she intended it or not, she has created a world where, since all of her readers are "muggles," we all feel the bigotry of the pure-bloods as being directed at us.
I have a theory about the Harry Potter book burnings: It isn't because the books deal with sorcery, is is because the worst of the book-burning-fundamentalists recognize themselves in the pure-bloods.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I want him to become evil, but in a different way - doing evil in a (doomed) attempt to do good. Never serving Voldemort, who, after all, killed his parents. On thing that always rang falsely with me about the DV myth was that he called himself "dark." If the hinted at reasons for the transformation are true, he sought power to do good and was corrupted. He thinks the Emperor is doing good, and the emperor is quietly gloating at how he's gotten this force for good to serve him.
It's the one bright spot in the original Shannara book, where the evil dude is killed by being forced to confront his true nature.
Dagonee
Posted by Azile (Member # 2312) on :
While the writing itself in Harry Potter is uncomparable to that of Lord of the Rings, I love the HP universe to pieces. I think Rowling created a fantastic world with lovable and quirky characters and it's amazing that all this came from one mind. The same goes for Tolkien, of course, but I simply prefer Rowling's HP universe to that of Tolkien's.
Given the huge LoTR fan base here, I can see that many people would disagree with me, but, er- different opinions for different folks, I say! Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Rowling writes what she wants to write - if we happen to like it, great. But she's not writing to cater to her audience insomuch as she's writing to her own little muse.
1. Loved the "pulling a Weasely" and the entire routine with the Political Officer.
2. Ginny had to unwind at some point - given the amount of domestic chaos in her life, she was going to relax and let her natrual Weasely-ness through sooner or later.
3. I thought Sirius died because he fell into the something-something Mirror? I'd re-read the section again, but I gave my entire book collection away. Heh - any chance the dead Sirius was using a polymorph spell? Thought not.
4. Yes, James and Sirius picked on Snape in a nasty, nasty manner - but Snape wasn't an innocent victim either. In some respects, "kids will be kids" and nasty bullying seems to be a re-occuring theme until some degree of maturity sets in, be you wizard or muggle. Does that change our outlook on Dudley? Probably not.
-Trevor
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I'm listening to it again right now -- not because of the movies (I haven't seen any of them, I like the books better), but because it's been a year and my memory of it is fuzzy enough for me to enjoy it again
Anyway... I can understand most of Harry's mistakes... but I don't understand Dumbledore's strategy of trying to appear distant from Harry so that Voldemort won't try to hurt Harry. That doesn't make any sense -- Voldermort would know that ANY Hogwarts student taken hostage or getting hurt is going to upset Dumbledore, it wouldn't matter which one...
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
In terms of actual writing, it has many, many flaws. The plot, on the other hand, is acceptable for its target audience.
The part I enjyoed most in that book was when 'Arry used the Crucio spell. It was a break from Rowling's wonderful method of using ALL CAPS TO SHOW HOW GODAMNED ANGRY HARRY IS BECAUSE ALL HIS FRIENDS ARE HAVING FUN AND POOR HIM--HE'S SUFFERING!
[ July 14, 2004, 02:05 AM: Message edited by: Phanto ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
quote: In terms of actual writing, it has many, many flaw
care to elaborate?
fallow
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Not now. Too late. I will get the book and go through it and find some of the stuff that irked me in terms of actual technical writing.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
The adverbs--that woman cannot leave a speech tag alone. Page 301 of Book 5--random page--we have Harry speaking "quite calmly" and "half laughing" and Hermione "anxiously" and "accusingly" and Sirius "hastily"--most of it totally unnecessary. We could have done without all of them, although leaving in "half laughing" would be fine.
There we go, that's my official Harry Potter gripe. Aside from that I'm good.
Jen
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have to admit that I counted five "snarled Harry"s in book five.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
So, Fyfe and Katharina, it sounds like you are accusing J.K. Rowling of "Said bookism." That's the technical term for a writer who can't leave a simple "said" tag alone. But really, you have to have balance. You really can't say "said" all the time without appearing dull, but neither can you be too obsessive about avoiding "said," either.
One thing that gets me is when a writer tries to compress too much into a said tag. Like:
quote:"Oh, I didn't mean to petrify you, Neville," laughed Harry.
It is really hard to say something that articulate while you are laughing. Better would be something like:
quote:Harry laughed and said, "Oh, I didn't mean to petrify you Neville."
The sequence is implied that he laughed before he spoke.
Another example:
quote:"Oh Harry, you're such a fatuous vacuole," Hermione sighed.
Did you ever try to say something while you were sighing? It is really hard to do, especially with a sentence longer than a word or two. Better would be:
quote:Hermione sighed. "Oh Harry, you're such a fatuous vacuole!"
And in that last example, you don't even have to use a said tag, because the speaker is implied.
Good fiction writers avoid using said too frequently by implying who the speaker is most of the time. Most back-and-forth dialogs, once they are established, have no said tags of any kind.
[ July 14, 2004, 05:56 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
One thing the book could have used is a nasty editor with a pair of scissors. It could be cut by a good twenty percent without making a dent in the plot. And really, what's with the ellipsis? When you use... ellipsis too ... much ... the reader gets very ... annoyed.
Posted by babager (Member # 6700) on :
I loved ALL of the Harry Potter books- I think book 5 could have lost about 200 pages and still told the same story but otherwise was very good. My family and I read it out loud together and we had a rule that no one could peek ahead (although it was a rule that was broken a couple of times )
I love that Harry is imperfect. I have a 14 yr old son and he gets bratty if I ground him from the PS2. Harry is a real character with real flaws. My husband seems to think Harry has real potential to go the the "dark side" - I don't think this will happen- at least not for good, JKR would have legions of heartbroken fans if Harry turned bad
but enough said- I can't wait for the next one Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
The editing point is a good one. Many authors, once they get big enough to have some clout, will start resisting editors' cuts. It happened to Clancey in about his third book, and JKR in her fourth.
Dagonee
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
I agree that book 5 was very hard to get through. It lacked the intensity of the other books and basically just developed personality. I thing JK Rowling is tired of Harry and needs a new idea to write about. (See the thread on the other side about OSC's changing over time.)
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I absolutely loved Book 5 -- it is, in fact, the first book in which I could tolerate Harry, who's otherwise been completely insufferable -- but could not stand Book 4, nor forgive its author for the complete shambles of a plot in that sorry excuse for a novel. Plot-wise, 5 is a considerable improvement.
Posted by Phanto (Member # 5897) on :
Technical Issues:
Page 2:
"grinding their teeth so loudly that he could not hear the news"
Ambigious whom he targets. We can assume Harry, yes, but from a stylistic point, Rowling then goes on to clarify almost every vague he with an apostrophe Harry. Consistancy!
Ditto:
Two many adverbial quotes. "Scathingly, unconcernedly, et cetra."
Ditto: Liberal use of italics. Though its fine every now and then, she will go on to over use it later. Same with elipses.
Ditto: Illogical connection in paragraph with Uncle Vernon, when he's ranting about news and Dudley.
Page 3: Overuse of descriptve quotes.
Page 3: Overuse of dash. Though fine in one place, (but here it can be replaced easily by commas) contextually becomes an issue. Perhaps too night -- after a month of waiting -- would be the night
Page 3: Elipses are abused here. Every time anything intiruging is brought up...elipses.
Page 5: On top is a very weird chunk of dialogue. Snarling, italics, dashes -- oh my!
Page 5: Some more overuse of adverbial clauses.
Page 6: Again.
Page 7: Same...here.
And it goes on for the whole book.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I hesitate to criticize a writer who has made millions of dollars. It might be interpreted as sour grapes.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
You mean the richest woman in England?
You can criticize to your heart's content as long as you put your remarks in the proper context.
"Her writing style bothers me - because she's made millions doesn't make it right, just popular."
If you want to giggle, listen to PhD Music students critique popular music.
-Trevor
Posted by UTAH (Member # 5032) on :
TomDavidson, please refresh my memory to what the plot was in Book 5. Seriously, I'd like to hear your point of view. Also, I haven't been around a whole lot. Do you have a new addition to the family?
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Probably why I keep reading the fanfic.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
) ![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
- I don't think this will happen- at least not for good, JKR would have legions of heartbroken fans if Harry turned bad ![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Taunt]](graemlins/taunt.gif)