Deathly Hallows / OOTP Movie Discussion 1147
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.
Spoiler Alert!!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
What did I think of them? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, if only we could find a way to make them read books like 1984, Brave New World, Catch 22 and Fahrenheit 451...
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:4, Funny)
The writer is commenting on Rowling's nihilistic perspective on the neopaganist movement.
The theory he puts forward in this sentence is that as a women she feels betrayed by the misogynistic class structure, and that neopaganism reinforces true classlessness. You see, in the wizard school those most proficient in magic rise to the top, not those born into a higher class. The writer postulates that Rowling is encouraging such a meritocracy.
The supposed naivety of the dream is amplified through the eyes of the protagonist, Harry.
I hope you all memorized what I just said, because you'll have to repeat it in your own words ad verbatim in the exam. You'll also have to be able to recite it while being monitored by a lie detector so we know that you really believe it. Class dismissed.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Harry Potter is just as good as any of those. I would say it's actually better, but I can see where reasonable minds might disagree. But the point is you are trying to compare Beethoven to Bach. Is one better? Sure, the books you mentioned certainly use
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That aside, "more cynical" people would spell the end of any human race anyone would want to be a party of. It's the end of hope, trust, love, and loyalty. You know, the four pillars of a worthwhile life.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The first movie was insipid and lifeless (outside the visualization of an entire world, which makes it interesting as an introduction). The movies progress with the age of the characters and become better, though I think the latest one fell a bit flat.
I wouldn't judge the series based on the first film, but keep in mind that they're designed to capture the imaginations of children and to resonate with them and I think it's very effect
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
It's a fascinating, vast universe and a compelling story by a brilliant *storyteller*; on the other hand, it doesn't have the textual beauty and pleasurable reading experience that truly great *authors* achieve.
Well that doesn't sound like meritless, condescending, elitism at all.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Really? Will it not?
I imagine that it won't be regarded as one of the finest pieces of prose ever written, but I do think that it will go down as being one of the greatest stories told in print.
Rowling's simplistic writing style is a huge component of what makes it so incredibly co
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Literature is merely the written work... particularly written work that has an impact on the reader. A work needs not be dreadfully complex to be masterfully crafted. I adore Dostoevsky and cannot stand Tolstoy... yet clearly the latter is a far more accomplished writer.
In the end, the quality of the writing is merely the illumination of the book, and it's the quality of the world that the author has woven together than determines the greatness of the work.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For me, personally, I don't care much for the LotR books. Tolkien's main thrust was to create a world (specifically some languages), and the story is completely secondary to that. Rowling's main thrust is her story, and her world is secondary to the story (but not as secondary as Tolkien's story).
The unfortunate result in Rowling's case is that her world isn't always consistent. The unfortunate result in Tolkien's case is that 1/3 of
Re:What did I think of them? (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmmm. Surely a more simple explanation is that CS Lewis is more to your taste than JK Rowling? The quality of writing isn't a one dimensional thing.
Should have renamed the film something else... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Should have renamed the film something else... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Should have renamed the film something else... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Luckily... (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Elder Wand recognized the wielder of Draco's wand as it's true master. Draco's wand (which Harry was wielding) was predisposed to win the duel as the Elder did not recognize Voldemort's mastery.
Complex and mysterious magic. [;-)
My opinion (Score:5, Insightful)
JRR Tolkien comparison (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
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 [umt.edu]
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).
Re:Not a Tolkien fanboy, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I'm pretty happy with it (Score:3, Interesting)
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).
Re:I'm pretty happy with it (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It wasn't like The Return of the King (movie), where plot ends were quickly, but sequentially tied up one by one, and it wasn't like many other books that drag out the ending far far too long, as to ruin the effect of the climax.
As for Rowling's writing style, I will continue to compare it to Kurt Vonnegut, whose books were some of the more straightforward and easily-digestible pi
Re:I'm pretty happy with it (Score:4, Interesting)
In the Potterverse, on the other hand, you not only have an acceptance of dark magic in the world, there is even a house of evil inside the school. Now the way things are portrayed, there isn't a case of good sylthers and bad ones, you don't really see that for the other houses, either. Pretty much every slther is a baddie and you don't hear of anyone from the other houses going bad. So the question is, why the hell are these people tolerated? There are even black magic shops in the shopping district. Not illicit underground dens that are in constant threat from the law but places of business that are allowed if looked down upon, like a regular porn shop. Huh? Black magic isn't the sort of thing that prudes look down upon that can be used for good or evil like alcohol, firearms, or porn. In fact, let's stick with the firearms angle. Bad guys carry guns but so do cops. They're dangerous, dangerous technology but the gun itself is not good or evil, only the person using it. But black magic is inherently evil and corrupting and the tools used in working it tend to involve dastardly sacrifices. In this universe, there is no demonstrated use for black magic that is benign or useful. It isn't like white magic is used for healing and construction and black magic is used by good AND evil people for defense, a tool that can be used or abused.
So, given that premise, why is black magic so tolerated?
Spoilers within (Score:5, Funny)
My thoughts (no spoilers) (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I was mostly dissapointed in the book.. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You might be right about some of the deaths being quick and sudden or random - but that was the point - they served the purpose that you did not know who would be next. I did not know for sure that Harry (or Ron or Hermione) would survive till the end of the book.
Maybe some folks would liked it all to have ended bad
Re:I was mostly dissapointed in the book.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Doing a death like this, avoiding the temptation to milk it for drama like a cow on a mechanical milker, that's cliche. Doing the opposite can be quite unexpected.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Your other points are good. But with this one, a recurring theme in the book is that life is not fair. In her world, often bad people go unpunished and good people die cruelly. I think this is one of the more adult themes of the book that makes the book so appealing.
For example, there is a high probability that this week someone will die in a fatal car crash here
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Spoiler: Voldemort is Luke's Father... (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Entertaining, not Enlightening (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there were definitely shades of gray in the book and series--the revelation of how truly great a man Snape was, the surprising turn of Draco, the loss of Dumbledore as a faultless character, Harry doing a lot of wrong shit through all 7 books, Sirius trying to murder Snape while he was in high school (which is somehow forgiven by most readers--although Orson Scot Card said he could not accept Sirius as a good guy after that revela
So unbelievable (Score:5, Funny)
Spoilers to the Rescue (Score:3, Informative)
Spoilers for those who need them. The link does not pop because Slashdot strips out target=_blank.
The three choices (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Reducing yourself to the level of the enemy who hates you will never provide a lasting victory. Rising above the enemy who hates you will. The end result may be the same (you have to kill them anyway) but how you get to that point is critical.
couldn't read Harry Potter myself (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [johntaylorgatto.com] 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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
A few problems... (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, I thought that was a bit contrived too but at the same time I guess
Re:A few problems... (Score:4, Funny)
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?
Obviously, Harry was still semi-transparent and flickering with immunity after having cashed in a +1UP, and didn't feel the pain.
My reviews of the Book and Movie (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Epilogue a disappointment (Score:3, Interesting)
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 any
I'll probably get modded down but... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
1. Character consistency. Neville goes from almost a squib to holding his own against death eaters, where does this come from?
Well...actually, she is consistent. Going back as far as book 5, you can see Neville becoming a capable wizard in his own right. Harry even comments on this after the fight in the Ministry of Magic.
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!
For a pathetic trap, it almost succeeded brilliantly.
Re:I'll probably get modded down but... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it was an Ok book, and indeed that the rest of the books were Ok. Where people criticise them, they often seem to forget that they were written for children and were phenomenally successful.
I have a huge amount of respect and admiration for JK because she wrote some very enjoyable books, but more importantly because she wrote enjoyable books that kids would read and see their parents reading. If that isn't a good thing for literature generally, then I don't know what is.
Oh, and I get really ticked off with the professional literary critics telling us that this isn't "great literature." Maybe, maybe not. But it's never been for the critics to judge that - our descendents will decide that (with a bit of perspective) and the critics rarely have much insight into it.
International Relations (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:International Relations (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
I know what happened to Luna (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re:Spoiler alert (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Voldemort: "No Harry, I AM your father" (Score:5, Funny)
Jolyon
Re:Draco's Wand (Score:4, Informative)
You don't have to kill, just defeat.
Re:Spoiler alert. (Score:4, Insightful)
Good for you! Now why are you in this thread, again?
Re:Spoiler alert. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Because Snape was never a traitor.
Not really a mistake but... how did Griffyndorf's sword got away from the goblins?
The Goblins obviously made it for them, they didn't care that a fake sword got deposited in Gringots.
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?
Because Dumbledore was a better wizard than G
Answers, I think... (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Plot mistakes? (spoilers) (Score:5, Funny)
If you start to think about it, you might come up with questions like:
* Why didn't they keep using the time turner thing to go back in time to save people?
* Why didn't the bad guys use the same?
* Sure luck potion takes 6 months to make, but surely someone could have gone to a bit of effort? They spent a lot of time sitting around doing nothing...
Re:Plot mistakes? (spoilers) (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:What? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What's this "my" Sweet Pea? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I'm not aware of any scoping document for Slashdot that defines precisely what should and should not be here.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:thinly-veiled homosexual propaganda (Score:4, Funny)
But I did read Vonnegut (Cats Cradle) in 5th Grade (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:4, Insightful)
The 1400s called. They want their prejudices back.
The average educated opinion on HP (Score:3)
"Profanity is the last refuge of the inarticulate motherfucker" -- Oscar Wilde
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Mozart... (Score:3, Insightful)
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 [imdb.com] but that's another story for another time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
AbeBooks [wikipedia.org] 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 [abebooks.com]
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, according to the Guinness World Record people [emol.org], 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 t
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:I haven't read SINGLE Harry Potter book (Score:4, Insightful)
Spoilers:
It's very gay, is it? (Score:5, Funny)
My goodness. What an aberration. What a sin against the will of God.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:You are just full of logical fallacies, aren't (Score:4, Funny)
And you are an elitist (Score:5, Insightful)
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